Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111605 PC Agenda .g In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Titie II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE November 16, 2005 - 6:30 P.M. ******** Next in Order: Resolution No. 2005-067 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Roll Call: Commissioner Guerriero Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Olhasso, Telesio and Mathewson PUBLIC COMMENTS . A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Minutes . RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of November 2, 2005 R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2005\ 11-16-05.doc _,~E'::~_, '_,. ~~-""~:;~-'..., 2 Director's Hearino Case Update . RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October, 2005 COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of 'or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. New Items . 3 Plannino Application No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment. PA05-0302 Planned Development Overlay, PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. PA04- 0571 Parcel Map. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Chanoe. Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map to construct a 566,160 souarefoot hospital. includino medical office buildinos on 35.31 acres, located on North side of Hiahway 79 South and south of DePortola Road. and approximately 700 feet west of Maraarita Road, Emery Papp. Senior Planner. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Wednesday, December 7, 2005, 6:30 PM, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. . R:\PLAN~OMM\Agendas\2005\ 11-16-0S.doc 2 . ITEM #1 . . . MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Mathewson thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: None. . PUBLIC COMMENTS . No public comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of October 19, 2005. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS Appointment of a Sub-Committee to work with BJ's Restaurant applicant Planning Director Ubnoske stated that the Planning Department received an application for BJ's Restaurant, advising that the project is completely changed from what was previously approved; and therefore, Ms. Ubnoske requested two members of the Planning Commission to sit in on a sub-committee to work with the applicant. R:\MinutesPC\ 110205 In response to Ms. Ubnoske's request, Commissioner Guerriero and Commissioner Telesio . volunteered to work with the applicant in a sub-committee. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from October 19, 2005 Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that staff requests that Item No. 2 be continued to the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting to allow staff sufficient time to review the revisions and to prepare a staff report addressing the revised sign program. 2 Plannina Application No. PA05-0064, a Development Plan. submitted by Matthew Faaan. for a Comprehensive Sian Proaram for the Maraarita Crossinas shoppina center on 5.56 acres. located on the southwest corner of Maraarita Road and Overland Drive MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue Item NO.2 to the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting per staff recommendation. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3 Plannina Application Nos. PA05-0009 a Tentative Tract Map and PA05-0010 a Development Plan/Product Review. submitted by Woodside Homes. to subdivide 11.65 acres into 92 lots for 77 detached sinale-familv "areen court" homes within Plannina Area 10 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, located east of Pechanaa Parkwav, alona the east side of Wolf Creek Drive South. south of Wolf Valley Road Associate Planner Kitzerow provided a staff report (of written record). . In response to Chairman Mathewson's comment regarding 2nd story window enhancements, Associate Planner Kitzerow stated that the Specific Plan requires enhancements in key locations such as a corner lot and advised that a back alley would not be considered a public corridor. Commissioner Telesio stated that he was of the opinion that the Planning Commissioner had decided that all new home development would have four-sided architecture. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Jeremy Smith, representing Woodside Homes, provided a PowerPoint Presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Michael Purrad, representing William Hezmalhalch architects, noted the following: . That the applicant is of the opinion that four-sided architecture has been proposed with the project . That five styles of architecture have been provided with varying roof pitches . That the proposed building will not be flat-sided buildings, that they will all have window break-ups and trim around the windows . A:\MinutesPC\ 110205 2 . . . · That pop-outs will not be on a 10 foot side yard but will be represented anywhere that would be in public view or a pas eo . That the variation on the setbacks will be 20 feet on side yards and fronts will be 10 feet to porch area . That there will be 15 gallon trees in the alley way. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he would expect to see four-sided architecture on every unit rather than just corner units. Referencing Commissioner Chiniaeff's comment, Mr. Purrad stated that it was the opinion of the applicant that variation has been provided between the units. Mr. Purrad also noted that if it was the desire of the Planning Commission to have every unit be the same, the applicant would be willing to add more elements to the remainder of the units. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero thanked staff for a thorough report and thanked the applicant for a great product. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion. (Following additional discussion, voice vote reflected unanimous approval of this motion, see below.) Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed his support for the proposed project as proposed by staff and is of the opinion that there is enough variation between the homes as proposed, but that he would be in favor of the applicant adding iarger trees for the alley way. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the project as proposed subject to the applicant adding larger trees in the alley ways, 24 to 25 inch boxes would be sufficient. Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that staff requests that Item No. 4 be continued to the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting to provide the applicant additional time to make the requested revisions to the sign program. 4 Plannina Application Nos. PA05-0155 a Pedestrian Plan and Sian Proaram, submitted by Allen Robinson. on a 0.55 acre site for Butterfield Sauare, located at the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue Item NO.4 to the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting as per staff's request. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. New Items 5 Plannina Application No. PA05-0257, a Minor Modification, submitted by Glenn Mouritzen of Lvons Warren. for a color and material facade chanoe to an existino 6.052 sauare foot retail plant nursery/aarden center. located at 27401 Ynez Road R:\MinutesPC\ 110205 3 Associate Planner Damko presented the Planning Commission with a staff report (of record) . and a new site plan, offering the following: . That the applicant would request to move the existing trash enclosure . That the applicant has an agreement with the adjacent property owner to use their trash enclosure and that in replace of the applicant's trash enclosure, they will be adding a parking space which will be more user friendly or their loading and unloading area . That the Community Services Department is in agreement with the applicant's request and have not imposed any other Conditions of Approval. At this time, the public hearing was opened and due to no speakers it was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation subject to the changes to the site plan as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS No report at this time. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that she will be providing dinner at the November 16, 2005, . Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 7:30 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular meetinq to be held on November 16. 2005 at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dave Mathewson Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning . R:\MinutesPC\ 110205 4 . ITEM #2 . . . CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning DATE: SUBJECT: November 16, 2005 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda iterns for October 2005. . Dat~ .... Case No. Proposal Applicant Action October 6, 2005 PA05-0242 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to Tony and Myra CONTINUED establish a 13,978 square foot Thornton TO 10/13/05 indoor children's party facility within an existing building, located at 43153 Business Park Drive October 6, 2005 PA05-0212 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to Dick Evitt, All Star APPROVED upgrade an existing Type 41 (on Realty sale beer and wine-eating place) license to a Type 47 (on sale general-eating place) license, located at 41925 Motor Car Parkwav October 13, 2005 PA05-0242 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to Tony and Myra APPROVED establish a 13,978 square foot Thornton indoor children's party facility within an existing building, located at 43153 Business Park Drive October 13, 2005 PA04-0539 A request for the fourth one-year Jack Robson, APPROVED Extension of Time for Tentative Cornerstone Parcel Map No. 28049, located on Communities the west side of Pujol Street, approximately 2,200 feet south of First Street October 13, 2005 P A05-0084 A Product Review for 133 Adam Smith, APPROVED detached single-family residential Standard Pacific homes located within Planning Homes Area 20 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, located east of Pechanga Parkway and south of Wolf Valley Road . R:\DIRHEARIMEM0\2005\IO.2005.doc PA05-0113 A Product Review for 159 Adam Smith, detached single-family residential Standard Pacific homes located within Planning Homes Area 22 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, located east of Pechanga Parkway and south of Wolf Valley Road October 13, 2005 Attachment: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R,IDIRHEARIMEM0\2005\10.2005.doc 2 APPROVED . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 ACTION AGENDAS R,IDIRHEARIMEM0\2005\10-2005.doc 3 . . . ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING October 6, 2005 1 :30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. Item No.1 1 :30 PM Project Information Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PA05-0242 Minor Conditional Use Permit Full Blown Tony and Myra Thornton A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a 13,978 square foot indoor children's party facility within an existing building. Northeast corner of Business Park Drive Categorically Exempt per CEQA Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities Harmony Bales CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 13,2005 Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: Item No.2 Project Information Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: PA05-0212 Minor Conditional Use Permit Seoul Galbi Restaurant Dick Evitt, All Star Realty A Minor Conditional Use Permit to upgrade an existing Type 41 (on sale beer and wine-eating place) license to a Type 47 (on sale general-eating place) license. Northeast corner of Ynez Road and Solana Way Categorically Exempt per CEQA Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities Harmony Bales APPROVED Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: R:\DIRHEAR\Agendas\2005\ 1 0-06-05 Action Agenda.doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING October 13, 2005 1 :30 PM . TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. Continued from October 6, 2005 Item No.1 Project Information Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: Item No.2 Project Information Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: 1 :30 PM PA05-0242 Minor Conditional Use Permit Full Blown Tony and Myra Thornton A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a 13,978 square foot indoor children's party facility within an existing building. Northeast corner of Business Park Drive Categorically Exempt per CEQA Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities Harmony Bales APPROVED . PA04-0539 Extension of Time Tentative Parcel Map 28049 Jack Robson, Cornerstone Communities A request for the fourth one-year Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 28049. West side of Pujol Street, approximately 2,200 feet south of First Street Categorically Exempt per CEQA Section 15315, Class 15, Minor Land Divisions . Stuart Fisk APPROVED R:\DIRHEAR\Agendas\2005\lO-13-05 Action Agenda.doc . . . Item No.3 Project Information Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: Item No.4 Project Information Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: P A05-0084 Product Review Cottonwood @ Wolf Creek Adam Smith, Standard Pacific Homes A Product Review for 133 detached single-family residential homes located within Planning Area 20 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 2,492 square feet to 2,977 square feet with three different floor plans and three architectural designs. East of Pechanga Parkway and south of Wolf Valley Road Environmental Impact Report Adopted (Section 15162) Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters APPROVED PA05-0113 Product Review Redwood @ Wolf Creek Adam Smith, Standard Pacific Homes A Product Review for 159 detached single-family residential homes located within Planning Area 22 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. Units range from 3,299 square feet to 4,495 square feet with four different floor plans and four architectural designs. East of Pechanga Parkway and south of Wolf Valley Road Environmental Impact Report Adopted (Section 15162) Cheryl Kitzerow/Matt Peters APPROVED R:\DlRHEAR\Agendas\2005\lO-13-05 Action Agenda.doc 2 . ITEM #3 . . . . . STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: November 16, 2005 Prepared by: Emery J. Papp, AICP PA04-0462 Application Type: PA05-0302 PA04-0463 PA04-0571 Title: Senior Planner File Number: General Plan Amendment Planned Development Overlay District Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit Tentative Parcel Map (32468) Project Description: A General Plan Amendment to remove the project area from the "Z" Overlay District of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which will permit new construction to exceed two-stories in height; a Zone Change from PO (Professional Office) and PDO-8 (De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District) to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay District-9) and adoption of a PDO text document to create height standards which would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit to establish a hospital facility and private helipad; a Development Plan for the design and construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35.31 acres, also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 and PA04-0571) Recommendation: ~ Recommend City Council Approval with Conditions CEOA: ~ EIR with Statement of Overriding Considerations PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. General Plan Designation: Professional Office (PO) Current Zoning Designation: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay District 8 (DePortola Road PDO-8) Proposed Zoning Designation: Planned Development Overlay District 9 (Temecula Hospital PDO-9) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: North: Vacant Very Low Density Residential (VL) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\PC I 1-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTI 1- 16-05 v2.doc I South: East: West: Highway 79 South, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CC) . Professional Office (PO), Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT), PDO-8 PDO-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay) Lot Area: 35.31 Acres Total Floor Area/Ratio: .36 Hospital: Medical Office Building NO.1: Medical Office Building No.2: Cancer Center: Fitness Rehabilitation Center: 408,160 square feet 80,000 square feet 60,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 8,000 square feet TOTAL: 566,160 square feet Landscape Area/Coverage: 33.3% Parking Required/Provided: 633/1 ,278 BACKGROUND SUMMARY On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of rancho Springs, Inc. submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. On November 4, 2004, the applicant submitted a Tentative Parcel Map (32468) to consolidate eight lots, . including a portion of the Pio Pica right-of-way (south of DePortola Road) into one lot. Staff originally prepared an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH 2005031017) and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project. The original Initial Study was circulated for a 30-day public review period from March 4, 2005 to April 6, 2005. A City Council Subcommittee (Mayor Comerchero and Councilman Naggar) was formed to meet with neighborhood groups to discuss the project. The City Council subcommittee formally met with the applicant and staff on September 27, 2004 and October 11, 2004. Staff met with the Santiago Estates Home Owners Association on December 6, 2004, and held a community meeting on December 8, 2004. The community meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding homeowners within 600 feet from the project site and approximately 45 residents and landowners were in attendance. The primary issues of concern that were raised through the various meetings with staff and the public include the following: . Traffic and circulation (access points) . Building height and views . Compatibility with residences . Noise . Helipad (location and number of flights) . R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI1-16-05 v2.doc 2 . . . On April 4, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this project. Staff received comment letters (Attachment 16) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. In addition, citizens attending the Planning Commission hearing provided additional oral comments. The following is a summary of the written and oral comments provided to the Planning Commission: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Issues . A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate for the project . There are analytical gaps in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) . A Water Supply Assessment is required and has not been prepared . Mitigation Measures need to be more definite and certain . Lack of traffic impact analysis on Pio Pico . Lack of analysis concerning impacts to equestrian uses in the area . Noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation is not adequately addressed . Lack of analysis concerning visual and aesthetic impacts . Mitigation is required for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat due to bridge construction (Phase II Dartolo Road access) . Additional Burrowing Owl studies will be required Traffic/Circulation Issues . Increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses . DePortola Road should not be four-lanes wide . Access from DePortola is not wanted by area residents, if required by City it should be gated for emergency access only . Access from Dartola should be in Phase I of the project . All of Pio Pico south of DePortola should be vacated . Emergency room should be relocated Noise Issues . Increased traffic will lead to increased noise levels . Helipad and helicopter use will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses . Provide sound walls to mitigate traffic noise Aesthetics . The hospital towers are too tall and not consistent in the area; views will be lost . Windows will reflect too much light and create glare Hydroloav and Groundwater . Due to increased runoff resulting from this project, a storm water plan should be prepared . Contamination from existing underground storage tanks may pose a threat to groundwater if the contamination plume moves. Once paved or built upon, this will be difficult to track. R:\C U P\2004\Q4-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 1 l-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 3 The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt of these comments and recommended that a Focused . Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in a Focused EIR for the hospital project. It was determined that the Focused EIR should evaluate impacts related to Traffic and Circulation Issues,' Noise, Aesthetics, and Hydrology and Groundwater. Staff met with the Applicant's consultant to confirm the scope of the EIR, and the City oversaw the preparation of the document. The' Draft EIR (SCH # 2005031017 - the same number as originally given to the MND) was circulated for public agency review and comment from September 28, 2005 to October 28, 2005. The State Clearinghouse granted a shortened review period of 30 days instead of 45 days, because the City had previously circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and the project scope had not changed. PROJECT ANALYSIS 1. Focused Environmental Impact Report Processing History: An Initial Study was prepared for this project, which concluded that, the approval and implementation of the proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment with respect to Aesthetics, Hydrology and Groundwater, Noise, and Transportation. A Notice of Preparation for this Focused EIR was issued on August 3, 2005, indicating that an EIR was being prepared and invited comments from public agencies and the general public. Comments were received from four agencies. Copies of these letters are included in Appendix A of the EIR. A Notice of Completion was prepared on September 26, 2005 and was forwarded to the State . Clearinghouse along with fifteen copies of the Draft EIR for distribution to Responsible and Trustee agencies for review and comment. The City requested a shortened, 30-day, review under CEQA, which was granted by the State Clearinghouse on September 26, 2005 because the City had previously circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and the scope of the project had not changed. A Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability was posted in the Californian newspaper on September 28, 2005. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR was from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. At the time this report was prepared, four public comment letters had been received and four Agency comments were received. A summary of these letters is included at the end of this section of the staff report. Copies of the comment letters and responses to the comments are included in the Technical Appendices of the EIR. A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term operation of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital. The EIR conclusions are as follow: Unavoidable Significant Impacts Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temccula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 4 Potentially Significant Impacts that can be Mitigated . Aesthetics - Light and glare Noise - Operational impacts (mechanical yard, emergency generators, mechanical equipment room, rooftop equipment) Transportation - Project impacts Impacts Considered but Found to Be Less than Significant Aesthetics - Scenic highways and visual character or quality Air Quality - Construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies Hydrology and water quality Land use and planning Noise (construction, ground-borne vibration, traffic-related noise, sirens, loading dock activities, trash pick-up, landscape maintenance, future exterior/interior noise environment) Issues Deemed by the Initial Study to have a Less than . Significant Impact or No Impact Agriculture resources Biological resources Cultural resources Geology/soils Hazards/fire safety , Mineral resources Population and housing Public services Recreation Utilities and service systems The EIR included discussions concerning environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the following impact areas; Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology and Groundwater, Land Use and Planning, Noise, and Transportation. The EIR also discusses the Cumulative and Long-Term Effects of the project, and six Project Alternatives. These sections of the EIR are briefly summarized below. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 1] -16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 5 A. Transportation The EIR indicates that the total average number of vehicle trips that will be generated by this project per day will be approximately 11,458 at project build-out. The proposed project includes 637 inbound/228 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour and 334 inbound/595 outbound trips during the PM peak hours. Six alternatives have been proposed for this project. Three of these Alternatives generate the same number of vehicle trips, two Alternatives will generate less traffic, and one Alternative will generate more traffic. The transportation impacts associated with each of the Alternatives are summarized in the following Table: Project Alternative Traffic Analysis Alternative 1: No Project - No Build No additional vehicle trips Alternative 2: No Project - Development Utilizing the Target Floor Area Ratio, Pursuant to General Plan vehicle trips are expected to be 33,000 - causing an increase of 21,542 ADT* Alternative 3: Alternate Site - Corona Total number of vehicle trips equal to Family Properties proposed project (11,458) - some vehicle trips would be expected to utilize Butterfield Stage Road as alternate route Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Total ADT same as for Project (11,458) but will result in 550 fewer ADT on DePortola Road - creates delays at 79 S/Margarita and at Dartolo/Margarita Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Total ADT same as for Project (11,458) Road and Dartolo Road but will result in 1,140 more vehicle trips on DePortola Road (570 right turns in, 570 right turns out) - reduces vehicle trips on Margarita Road by 1 ,340 ADT Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Total number of vehicle trips reduced by Only 2,890 due to absence of medical offices * Maximum Floor Area Ratio would result in greater impacts Per the Table above, in terms of the total number of Average Daily Trips (ADT), Alternatives 1 and 6 would generate less traffic, but do not meet the City's or the Applicant's objectives for the project, and are therefore not considered viable Alternatives. Alternatives 3 and 5 would create traffic impacts similar to the proposed Project. Alternative 4 would generate the same number of vehicle trips as the proposed Project, but impacts would be greater at the intersection of Dartolo and Margarita Roads due to the lack of adequate stacking distance between intersections. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaJ\PC I I-I 6-05\PC-STAFFR EPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 6 . . . . . . Alternative 2 would generate more traffic than the proposed project. Under the current proposal, a total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.36 is proposed, which translates to 566,160 square feet of combined hospital/medical office space. Under Alternative 2 (No Project), the site would ultimately be built out under current General Plan land use designations and zoning. Future buildings would be limited to two-stories in height, but the Target FAR is 0.5, which could allow the site to be built at up to 769,051 square feet of commercial and office uses, and have a greater trip generation impact than the proposed hospital. Furthermore, intensity bonuses exist under current conditions that could allow the site to build up to an FAR of 1.0, or more than 1,500,000 square feet of commercial/office space. In terms of traffic generation, the Hospital project as proposed, is superior to the No Project Alternative. With the proposed Hospital project, projected traffic volumes on DePortola Road have been a concern for neighboring residents because of the proposed driveway access to/from DePortola Road. The traffic study that was prepared for this project indicates that with or without a driveway access on DePortola Road, the LOS will be "D" or better. DePortola Road, which is a collector roadway, can easily handle the total projected volumes of 8,650 ADT of which only 1,700 ADT are related to the hospital. By eliminating the driveway on DePortola Road, less than one-third of the hospital trips would be removed from DePortola Road. Those diverted trips (approximately 550 fewer vehicle trips per day along DePortola Road) are insignificant. This results in approximately 50 fewer vehicle trips during the peak hours, or a saving of less than one vehicle trip per minute. Table 5-2 on page 5-13 of the Draft EIR shows that the resulting Level of Service (LOS) on DePortola Road with existing traffic, plus the Cumulative Projects, plus the proposed hospital project will be maintained at LOS "Du. The total number of ADT will be 8,650. Up to 14,000 vehicle trips per day can be handled on the existing DePortola Road before exceeding LOS "D." As a result, project impacts on the LOS for DePortoia Road are less than significant. Four mitigation measures are proposed to reduce traffic related impacts of this project and are as follows: T -1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way with the following configuration: Westbound: 1 right-turn lane 3 through lanes 1 left-turn lane Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes 2 through lanes 1 shared through/right lane Northbound: 1 left-turn lane 1 shared through/right lane Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes 1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide) T-2. The project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to, the Highway 79 South intersection at 1-15. R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11~16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 7 T-3. The project applicanVpermittee will contribute a fair share toward the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the project's contribution toward cumulative . impacts: Highway 79 South/l-t5 Southbound Ramps: Additional southbound left-turn lane Highway 79 South/l-t5 Northbound Ramps: Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert westbound right lane to free right turn Highway 79 South/La Paz Road: Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and one shared through/right lane Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway: Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus eastbound and northbound free right-turn lanes Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way: Signalize and provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-turn lanes with a shared through/right-turn lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane for westbound approach. Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road: Provide southbound and eastbound dual left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps. T-4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola Road developed to the specifications of the Public Works Director. B. Land Use and Planning . The proposed project, due to its proposed height, is not consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Element. To make the project consistent with the General Plan, an Amendment to the Land Use Element is proposed. If approved, the General Plan Amendment will remove eight parcels from an existing Specific Plan Overlay District, which currently limits the height of buildings to two-stories. The proposed hospital bed-towers are five- and six-stories. All of the proposed uses for the project are permitted in the Professional Office Land Use designation, and are permitted or conditionally permitted in the Professional Office Zone. Therefore, there is no conflict with the underlying General Plan or Development Code related to use. In fact, Land Use Policy 1.8 supports the development of a hospital. Land Use policies 3.1 and 5.2 require that the proposed project incorporate suitable buffers to mitigate impacts on surrounding residential properties. The residential properties to the north will be buffered from the main hospital structures by approximately 210 feet of open space including a horse trail and jogging path, as well as 350 feet of open parking area. A landscaped area, approximately 228 feet deep is proposed immediately south of the jogging path and west of the parking area on the north side of the hospital. As a result of the site layout, staff can make the findings that this project is consistent with the General Plan. Impacts related to use are less than significant. The issue of height has been contested and continues to be an issue for surrounding property owners. A Project Alternative with a two-story hospital was evaluated but rejected because it would not have met either the City's or the Applicant's objectives for the project. A . key objective for the City is to facilitate the construction of a regional hospital facility designed R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16~05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 8 . . . to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits. Further objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible with the surrounding uses in terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions. Staff can make the findings to support the height of the proposed structures given the distances between the hospital structures and the nearest residentially zoned parcel. The buffers are adequate to protect residentially zoned properties and the project is consistent with existing and proposed Professional Office development along Highway 79 South and Margarita Road. As proposed and conditioned, the project is compatible with the existing built environment and the proposed development standards are not considered to have any significant impact. C. Aesthetics The project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated State scenic highway. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site does not contain any scenic resources, is not known for its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources. The proposed project will be visible from residential parcels to the north, and the five- and six-story hospital bed-towers will partially obstruct views from nearby locations. However, the views of the local mountains are not protected by any City regulation or policy. The proposed changes in land use regulations for this project will result in a height standard for the site that is not allowed under current conditions. The proposed height of the bed- towers will impact the visual character of the site. However, the hospital bed-towers will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and approximately 630 feet from DePortola Road. The project site is currently vacant with no sources of light and glare. The proposed hospital bed-towers do have the potential to emit light and glare from the upper floors. Three mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the aesthetic impacts to a level of insignificance. The following three mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the project related impacts to a less than significant level: 'A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed light levels for the entire project site onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate potential light impacts. A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare emitted from the upper floors. A-3. The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC l1-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTlI-16-05 v2.doc 9 D. Noise a. Utilizing the discussion of thresholds for noise identified in the EIR, the following is summary of the noise impacts for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section 8.32.020 of the Municipal Code, which limits the hours of grading activities. The proposed project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the demolition, site clearing and grading phase of construction when this,activity occurs near property lines. This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the short duration of the activity. The application for a private helipad, if approved by the State, will allow up to six helicopter landings per month. Up to six flights per month may be considered by some residents near the hospital to be a significant impact and annoyance. The EIR has determined that this is an unavoidable significant impact that will require findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration (see Environmental Determination Section for Statement of Overriding Consideration). Noise associated with the mechanical yard equipment may expose persons to noise levels in excess of the noise/land use compatibility standards established in the General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, these impacts are potentially significant and will require mitigation. Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less than significant. . Eight mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the operational noise impacts, with the exception of helicopter noise, to a level of insignificance. The following eight mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the project related impacts to a less than significant level: N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully operational upon completion of project construction, the applicant/permittee shall conduct continuous, 24-hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that may be in place at the time, the applicant/permittee shall implement measures to achieve the thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such measures may include, but not be limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance. N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for critical patient transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit for an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits. N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of a . preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC II-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI ]-16-05 v2_doc 10 . . . N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to four per day, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings on the site to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the General Plan. N-6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and other restrictions set forth in the City of Temecula Municipal Code. N-7 All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to minimize noise. N-8 During demolition and construction operations, the applicant/permittee shall stage all stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical from surrounding residential properties. E. Air Quality The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will result in significant air quality impacts during the project's construction and operational phases. During construction, compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations will reduce Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) emissions to levels below SCAQMD thresholds. However, Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,) emissions from construction vehicle exhaust will exceed daily thresholds set by the SCAQMD, resulting in a significant, unavoidable short-term air quality impact, for which the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration to approve the project. The following seventeen mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the short-term and long-term air quality impacts: Pre-qradinq AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for a final location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices. AQ-3. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards appropriate for medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of California regulations. AQ-4. The applicant/permittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc II beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to prevent dust and erosion, with such temporary landscaping 10 be . installed at the applicanVpermitlee's expense. AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the applicanVpermittee shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth-moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably possible. AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works Director reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the project construction. AQ-7. The applicant/permittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the following examples listed below: . Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site inactive for over four days. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. . Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion. Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon. Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour. Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary coverings. Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. . . . . . . . The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. Compliance with The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be subject to periodic site monitoring by the City Gradinq and Construction AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel. AQ-1 O. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related enclosures and . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC II-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTlI-16-05 v2.doc \2 . . . facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. AQ-11.AII trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. AQ-12.During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicanVpermittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or construction. AQ-13.During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the applicanVpermittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. AQ-14. The applicanVpermittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the project to the maximum extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coatings. The following websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content coatings: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-ComplianCAI M.pdf http://www.delta-institute . orglpublications/paints. pdf AQ-15.The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. Operations AQ-16.AII refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. AQ-17. The applicanVpermittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to promote alternative transportation. Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation, the estimated long-term daily emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and ROG will exceed the operational thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Even with the proposed Mitigation Measures, long-term air R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC II-I6-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 13 quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable and, therefore, findings and a Statement . of Overriding Consideration must me made for this impact as well (see Environmental Determination Section for Statement of Overriding Consideration). F. Hydrology and Water Quality The California Water Resources Control Board requires all development projects to prepare a Storm Water and Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate water quality impacts during storm events that occur during construction. The project will be conditioned to prepare and comply with the SWPPP. In addition, the project is conditioned to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), outlining how the project will minimize water quality impacts during operation of the project. Compliance with these conditions will ensure a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and water quality. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for this project, pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10910-10915. According to the results of the WSA, the RCWD Water Facilities Master Plan, and the RCWD Urban Water Management Plan, sufficient water supply exists to support the Temecula Regional Hospital project. Impacts related to water supply are less than significant. As a result, no Mitigation Measures are required or proposed for this project. G. Cumulative and Long-Term Effects Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the Draft EIR discuss the cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes resulting from the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital project and 21 related projects identified by the City and included in the Draft EIR. The following is a discussion of the cumulative environmental impacts: . Aesthetics. The primary concerns are the potential for artificial lighting sources to interfere with operations of the Mount Palomar Observatory. Standard Conditions of Approval are expected to require projects to conform to Ordinance No. 655 to reduce the impacts of "sky glow" to a level that is less than significant. Air Quality. Short-term and long-term air quality impacts of the project alone will be significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation proposed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR. As a result, the cumulative impacts will also be significant and unavoidable. Hvdroloay and Groundwater. Impacts related to runoff and siltation will be controlled on a project-by-project basis due to required adherence to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, and project specific Water Quality Management Plans. Continued implementation of these requirements will reduce cumulative impacts to a level that is less than significant. Potential cumulative impacts related to flooding will be minimized to a level that is less than significant through the design and implementation of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Master Drainage Plan. Land Use and Plannina. The proposed project and cumulative growth will result in changes to existing land uses. However, the approval of these projects requires that the City and County analyze the projects for conformance with Land Use designations and Zoning, and both jurisdictions have determined that the uses are consistent with the General Plan and . R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\PC 11~16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTlI-16-05 v2.doc 14 . appropriate for the area. Therefore, cumulative land use and planning impacts are considered to be less than significant. Noise. As noted in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR, the project's contribution to cumulative traffic noise will not be significant. Helicopter noise impacts have the potential to be significant and unavoidable. With regard to stationary noise sources, the City will continue to ensure that new buildings are constructed according to State acoustical standards. Furthermore, implementation of Land Use and Noise Element policies aimed at avoiding compatibility conflicts will reduce cumulative noise impacts to a less than significant level. Transportation. The number of Average Daily Trips (ADT) projected for the proposed hospital and 21 other cumulative projects is approximately 160,500. Adverse impacts to the circulation network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction measures were not implemented. Mitigation Measures, discussed in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR, identifies roadway improvements that will be pursued to alleviate the anticipated future traffic volumes. . The City will also continue to require development to pay traffic impact fees to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections. As summarized in Section 4.6, the proposed project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the following roadway links will continue to operate over capacity: . Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road . Margarita Road from DePortola Road to Dartolo Road . Margarita Road from Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. Some intersections near Interstate 15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, will be significant and unavoidable. . H. Growth-Inducing Impacts The CEQA Guidelines require the Draft EIR to discuss "ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth . . . in the surrounding environment" including the project's potential to remove obstacles to population growth. The proposed project is located within an area of Temecula that is fully served by urban infrastructure and is considered an 'nfill development site. Thus, the project does not have any components or features that could induce further growth. The proposed hospital project will provide new jobs and these new jobs could potentially induce support development in the surrounding area. The surrounding community is nearly built-out or entitled for residential uses, and surrounding land uses are zoned for commercial and professional office use. The proposed project, therefore, is not anticipated to induce population or job growth beyond that which is already planned for and anticipated by adopted land use policies. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes: Construction and day-to-day operation of the proposed hospital project will consume nonrenewable resources. Building materials (such as aggregate, sand, cement, steel and glass) and energy resources (gasoline, diesel fuel and electricity) will be irretrievable. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\PC 11~16-05\PC-STAFFREPORT11-16-05 v2.doc 15 During the operational life span of the facility, employees and visitors will drive vehicles that . will consume fossil fuels, however, these activities are not considered wasteful. Water will be consumed by the project, but the use of low-flow fixtures and other features will be applied to the project to reduce consumption. Considering the long life span of the project, the non- renewable resources consumed for this project are insignificant compared to the total annual resources used regionally. Therefore, no short-term or long-term significant adverse impacts on nonrenewable resources are expected to result from the project. I. Project Alternatives The CEQA Guidelines require that a jurisdiction evaluate project alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or reducing them to a less than significant level while achieving most of the major project objectives. Alternative 1, No Project - No Build: This project alternative would leave the subject site vacant in perpetuity. This alternative would avoid the significant air quality impacts associated with the project and would not generate any additional traffic. No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with the No Project - No Build Alternative would be less than those resulting from the proposed project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, it meets none of the project objectives identified by the City and the Applicant. As a result, staff does not support this alternative. Alternative 2, No Project: This project alternative would not permit the proposed hospital and eventual development would occur following the underlying Land Use and Zoning criteria. Development pursuant to the current General Plan and Zoning for the site could result in potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Aesthetic impacts related to land use and planning (height) would be reduced compared to the proposed project, however, the total amount of constructed floor space could be greatly expanded under this scenario. Noise impacts associated with helicopter flights would be avoided. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the proposed hospital project. This alternative would not attain the City's objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital, or the Applicant's objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and the surrounding communities. As a result, staff does not support this alternative. . Alternative 3, Alternate Site - Corona Family Properties: This alternative has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, land use compatibility and noise impacts. This alternative would also require that a portion of the site be annexed into the City of Temecula, which would delay the proposed timing for the project while annexation proceedings take place. Noise impacts of this alternatiye could be greater due to longer helicopter flights over residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are uncertain. as site-specific surveys have not been performed. All other impacts are comparable to the proposed project. This alternative would meet the City's and the Applicant's objectives, but cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic, agricultural resource, land use compatibility and noise impacts could be greater at this location. As a result, staff does not support this alternative. . Alternate 4 - Access from Dartolo Road (no DePortola Road access): This alternative is likely to result in greater traffic and biological resource impacts than the proposed Hospital project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact traffic flow at the intersection of . Highway 79 South and Margarita Road and would increase the delay for traffic on Margarita R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 1 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 16 . Road because there will be no access to/from DePortola. The possible removal of the signalized intersection at Dartolo Road and Margarita Road would help to improve the queuing condition, but would also result in the removal of left-turn movements at this intersection. To make the connection to Dartolo Road from the project site, a bridge would need to be constructed over an existing drainage course, which has the potential to create biological impacts on site. Also, the time required to obtain the necessary permits would create a substantial project delay. All other impacts are comparable to the proposed project. This alternative would meet the City's but not all of the Applicant's objectives, and the cumulative impacts with respect to traffic and biology for this alternative could be greater than those of the proposed hospital project. As a result, staff does not support this alternative. Alternate 5 - Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road: This alternative would not avoid the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Hospital project. The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from, neither the proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the DePortola Road secondary entrance. Biological resource impacts (bridge across drainage channel to connect site to Dartolo Road) associated with this alternative would be greater than those of the proposed hospital project (bridge crossing in Phase II if Phase II constructed). This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project. This alternative would meet the City's and the Applicant's objectives, but the cumulative impacts of this Alternative could be greater than those of the proposed hospital project. As a result, staff does not support this alternative. . Alternate 6 - Construction of Hospital Only: Alternative 6 would result in reduced impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there would be a reduction in the total footprint of the development. Therefore, the visual impact, trips generated by the project, and short-term and long-term air quality impacts would be less than those associated with the proposed hospital project. Noise impacts associated with the mechanical equipment could also be reduced, but noise related to the helicopter use would remain the same. This alternative meets the City's objectives to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. However, Alternative 6 fails to meet the City's objective to support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base. Furthermore, Alternative 6 does not meet the Applicant's objective to provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would result only in construction of the hospital. This alternative has fewer environmental impacts associated with the proposed uses, however it fails to meet the City's and the Applicant's goals and objectives. As a result, staff does not support this alternative. Environmentally Superior Alternative: Section 15626.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, has been identified as the environmentally superior Alternative. J. Statement of Overriding Consideration . Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines reguires the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the Lead Agency determines these R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\PC 11-16--05\PC-$TAFFREPORTll ~ 16-05 v2.doc 17 impacts are significant and the Lead Agency approves the project. Therefore, if the City of Temecula approves the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project, the City Council, after . certifying the Final EIR, must adopt an SOC for the following unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed project: . Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts . Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights . Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts Staff has determined that the EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the Temecula Regional Hospital. With the implementation Qf the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts cited above. To the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the EIR could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Temecula Regional Hospital that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Temecula. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Temecula Regional Hospital to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Temecula Regional . Hospital, and having weighed the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council determine that the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: 1. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide necessary medical services to the local community, including but not limited to emergency, acute, outpatient, and cancer medical care and physical rehabilitation services. 2. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with new employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services workers. 3. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will support the diversification of Temecula's economic and employment base, including but not limited to biomedical, research, and office facilities. 4. The Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located, with access from a major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and the region. Staff believes that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital that cannot be mitigated. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds and recommends that the City Council further finds that each . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 18 . of the Temecula Regional Hospital benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. K. EIR Comment Letters The following is a list of comment letters received on the Draft Focused EIR and a brief description of the issues discussed in each letter. The public review and comment period was from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. The letters are grouped into two categories; letters received prior to the close of the public review and comment period, and letters received after the close of the public review and comment period. Copies of the comment letters and responses to the comment letters can be found in the Technical Appendix of the EIR. . Letters received prior to October 28, 2005: a. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is concerned about the implementation of mitigation measures to alleviate traffic concerns along Highway 79 South and 1-15, and the potential for preemption of signals for emergency vehicle access. The RCTC is also concerned with traffic generated by the ,"draw" area for the services provided, and impacts due to evacuation plans. The RCTC has expressed concerns over parking, and the coordination with other development in the area (dated October 4,2005 and received October 13, 2005). b. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control is concerned about the possibility of discovering contaminated soil on-site, and the possibility of uncovering contaminated soils during grading and excavation activities. Demolition of structures should also be investigated to determine if asbestos, lead-based paint, or mercury exists within the structures (dated October 14, 2005 and received October 20,2005). c. Pechanga Cultural Resources is concerned about the potential for the discovery of human remains and/or artifacts of cultural significance during grading and excavation activities. They are requesting additional mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval that will provide protection, proper disposition, and/or avoidance of any culturally significant finds on the subject property (dated October 24, 2005 and received via facsimile October 25, 2005). d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District responded that they do not normally comment on projects within incorporated cities. However, there are District facilities adjacent to the project, and if any work is proposed within the District's right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. If the project connects to the District's Temecula Creek Line V Stage 2 Channel, impacts will need to be identified (dated October 26, 2005 and received via facsimile October 26, 2005). e. The law firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP requested an extension of the public review period for the EIR on October 26, 2005 (received October 27, 2005). This request was denied. f. The law firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP submitted a second letter on October 28, 2005 expressing the following concerns: A lack of analysis concerning traffic impacts to Pio Pico Road; there is no discussion of how noise impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels; the noise study does not determine the number of anticipated . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl1-16-05 v2.doc 19 helicopter flights to the hospital; adequate mitigation measures have not been prepared for aesthetic impacts; deferral of mitigation measures for aesthetic impact is . illegal (dated October 28, 2005, received via facsimile on October 28, 2005). g. The law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo submitted a letter, with testimony from expert witnesses, expressing the following concerns: the City violated CEQA's statutory public review period; The EIR fails to accurately describe the project; the EIR lacks sufficient detail to analyze the Project's impacts; the EIR fails to disclose or analyze all potentially significant impacts; the EIR fails to incorporate effective measures to mitigate environmental impacts to less than significant; Cumulative impacts are significant and unmitigated; the EIR must disclose all General Plan inconsistencies (Dated October 28, 2005, received via electronic mail October 28, 2005, received hard copy November 1, 2005). Letters received after October 28, 2005: h. Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association is concerned that the height impacts of the project have not been demonstrated on-site, and request that balloons or some other object is placed to show the height of the of the proposed structures (dated October 31, 2005, received November 3, 2005). I. Trumark Companies is concerned over how the construction and operation of the hospital project will impact aesthetics, air quality, land use and planning, and noise in the vicinity of its proposed 112-unit senior residential development project adjacent to and east of the proposed hospital project (dated November 3, 2005, received November 7, 2005). 2. General Plan Amendment . The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the subject properties from the Future Specific Plan Z overlay (previously shown as Future Specific Plan Z2 Overlay in the City's original General Plan Land Use Element). The description and objectives of the Future Specific Plan Z Oyerlay contains language that requires projects adjacent to single-family residents to be limited in height to one or two stories. In order to accommodate the hospital, it is necessary to remove the height restriction. Functionally, the hospital needs the two five- and six-story bed-towers. By removing the properties from this Overlay, the underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Professional Office will guide the development of these properties. The description of Professional Office in the General Plan is as follows: "Primarily single or multi-tenant offices, including legal, design, engineering, medical, corporate, government, and community facilities." The proposed hospital and associated medical offices are consistent with this General Plan designation. Further, the proposed hospital meets Goal 1 of the City's General Plan Land Use Element which states that the City wishes to have a "diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses." Additionally, Policy 1.8 under the Land Use Element Goal 1 encourages ''future development of a community hospital and related services, as well as a community college, major college or university." 3. Zone Change Planned Development Overlays (PDO) are mechanisms by which an applicant can create special standards for the development of their property (I.e. setbacks, landscape requirements, height . restrictions, etc.). The Temecula Hospital PDO-9 (Attachment 4) was filed to allow flexibility with R:\C U P\2Q04\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC II-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl )-16-05 v2.doc 20 . . . respect to the height of the hospital. All other development standards for these properties will revert back to the Development Code standards contained in the Professional Office Zone. The Official Zoning Map for the City will also be amended to show the location and boundaries of the proposed PDO-9. 4. Conditional Use Permit The underlying PO zoning regulations require a conditional use permit for hospitals and helipads. The proposed hospital will be a full service facility operating 24-hours a day, seven days a week. Services provided at the hospital will include emergency treatment, outpatient surgical services, inpatient surgical services, acute care inpatient services, intensive and cardiac care services (ICU/CCU). In addition, comprehensive departments of radiology/imaging, cardiology, laboratory and other outpatient services will be provided. The project will not include a trauma center. The helipad is located on the north side of the hospital, on the eastern portion of the site. The applicant has stated that the helipad will be used to transport patients to other facilities requiring specialized treatment. The applicant expects there will be only one flight per month on average, butthe permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to six landings per month. As discussed on page 4-58 of the Draft Focused EIR, in the event of a mass casualty event, these limits will not apply. (Section 3527, Title 21, California Code of Regulations.) With the findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration, EIR Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval, the CUP will be consistent with policies contained in the General Plan and compatible with the surrounding land uses. 5. Development Plan The Development Plan consists of a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres. The Development Plan will be constructed in five phases. Phase IA will consist of site grading, demolition of any remaining existing structures on site, construction of a three-story (60-foot high), 60,000 square foot medical office building, Highway 79 South access points and surface parking. Phase IA is expected to take 10 months to complete. Phase IS will consist of construction of the one-story main hospital building comprising approximately 162,650 square feet, a six-story (106-foot high) bed-tower comprising approximately 122,755 square feet, DePortola Road access point and additional surface parking. Phase IB is expected to take 14 months to complete. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of a five-story (83.5 foot high) bed-tower comprising approximately 122,755 square feet, and construct the access to Dartolo Road. Phase III will add a four-story (73-foot high), 80,000 square foot medical office building. Phase IV will add a one-story (27-foot high), 10,000 square foot cancer center and additional surface parking. Phase V will add a one-story (27-foot high), 8,000 square foot physical therapy and fitness center. Phases II through V are expected to be constructed concurrently and take approximately 12 months to complete. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc 21 Access/Circulation . There are two primary access points, both of which are located along Highway 79 South. The primary access point along Highway 79 South aligns with Country Glen Way and will require the modification of the traffic signal to allow full turning movements (DP Condition No. 88a.) The other access point along Highway 79 South is located further west and will be a right-in, right-out only access point. A secondary driveway is located at the northeastern portion of the project site connecting to DePortola Road and will be designed to prohibit left turns from the project site (right- out only). The project site will also have internal access connecting with the Rancho Pueblo PDO to the west. The original project proposal did not include an access point to/from DePortola. Staff required the applicant to provide a secondary driveway access directly to DePortola. Staff believes that alternative access points are necessary due to the potential for unforeseen closures along Highway 79 South, which have historically and may again in the future close down Highway 79 South. Additional access points that are not located along Highway 79 South will allow the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles to remain highly functional at all times. This DePortola access point is a secondary driveway designed in a manner that will not permit left hand turns exiting the project site. This will require all traffic leaving the project site onto DePortola Road to travel east towards Margarita Road, away from the residential area. Staff has also included a Condition of Approval requiring a bridge over the floodway connecting the site to Dartolo Road on the eastern portion of the site (DP Condition No 138). The bridge will allow the future connection to Margarita Road. The access and circulation of the project will not adversely impact the adjacent roadways. The following improvements are required to be installed and operational prior to occupancy of any building in Phase I: Installation of traffic signal at Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way, . including a dedicated right turn lane along the westbound lanes and restriping of through lanes and turning lanes at this intersection; DePortola Road access point and roadway improvements; Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) southbound and eastbound right turn signal overlap; and improve Dona Lynora with half street improvements and restrict movements to right in/right out vehicular movements. Prior to the certificate of any occupancy for any building in Phase II, internal access from the project site shall be provided to Dartolo Road. Based on the Development Code parking regulations, the site is required to provide a minimum of 633 parking spaces and 1,278 spaces have been provided. The parking lot will be constructed in phases to coincide with the development of each building. The project is consistent with the parking standards as set forth in the Development Code for hospital and office facilities. Site DesianlArchitecture The hospital building will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will include the single- story main hospital building and six-story tower housing approximately 170 beds. The second phase includes the five-story tower housing the remaining 150 beds (320 beds total). The project proposes a Spanish style architectural design for all buildings. The building design features the use of earth-toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze tinted glass and Indian Red tile at the base. An octagon-roofed rotunda divides the hospital towers. The hospital, medical office buildings and the cancer center each'include a porte-cochere covered entry. The site design and architecture, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The project site is designed in a manner that complies with the development standards. The colors and . materials are consistent with the Spanish architectural style proposed by the applicant. Each R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I l-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc 22 . . . building maintains the three components required for each building, including a tile base, stucco body and Spanish roof. The applicant added a band below the fourth story windows of the towers to break up the massing, which'reduces the blank wall appearance. In addition, the abundance of windows on each building breaks up the amount of solid surface. A decorative rotunda between the towers adds interest from Highway 79 South and reduces the massing by providing a separate feature between the towers. The entry of the hospital, medical office buildings and cancer center all include a decorative covered canopy. The covered entry defines the primary entry for each building as a focal point. The applicant has also proposed a decorative boulder water feature at the main entrance of the hospital to further accentuate the entry. The hospital building is required to obtain building permits from the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) and is exempt from City structural review and building permits. The two medical office buildings and fitness rehabilitation center will be required to obtain building permits from the City of Temecula Building Department. As'a result of OSHPOD's jurisdiction to review plans for this project, staff has tailored the timing thresholds for the Conditions of Approval of the hospital building only to coincide with OSHPOD submittal requirements. Buildina Heiaht and Views The primary issues of concern with regard to building height and views, includes the two towers that are five- and six-stories. The applicant has stated that the design of the hospital is primarily based on internal functional relationships. The various uses and functions inside of the building must be located adjacent to other critical uses. This includes nurse stations, care rooms, treatment facilities, equipment as well as elevators, stairs and window placement. With the '10rm follows function" concept in mind, the design of the building is severely limited in what can be changed in regard to tower location, layout and movement (or relocation) of functioning areas. Staff understands the concerns of the residents located to the north of the hospital properties with respect to the height of the two hospital towers. However, given that the two towers must be this height to allow the hospital to maintain it's functionality, and given that the nearest hospital tower is set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned property and approximately 630 feet from DePortola Road, and that a 238-foot wide landscape zone is provided along the northern edge of the hospital property between the hospital and DePortola Road, staff believes that the visual impacts of the towers have been adequately mitigated. Landscapina Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25-foot wide bermed landscape planter along Highway 79 South, consisting of 24-inch box and 15-gallon California Pepper trees, Sycamores and assorted shrubs; DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line consists of a minimum 40-foot wide landscape/equestrian trail buffer consisting of 24-inch box and 15-gallon Afghan Pines and Silk Trees; a 50-foot wide planter along the western property line of assorted street trees; and a minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffer consisting of an informal planting of natural turf and assorted trees along the eastern property line. The overall site will include 20% 36-inch box (approximately 176 trees), 30% 24-inch box, and 50% 15-gallon trees. The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33% proposed). The applicant has proposed and/or is conditioned to provide landscape berms adjacent to public streets to screen the parking lots. Staff has included Conditions of Approval to further buffer the residential area from the project by requiring berms and mature evergreen trees such as Afghan Pines and R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI )-16-05 v2.doc 23 California Pepper trees between the project site and residential areas to the north (DP Condition No. ~. . 6. Tentative Parcel Map The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight parcels into one parcel. Included as part of the map is a request to abandon the southern portion of Pia Pica Road. The portion requested to be abandoned is not built at this time. The proposed parcel map is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff originally prepared an Initial Environmental Study and recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. However, based on responses from agencies and property owners at Public Hearings held on April 6, 2005 and April 20, 2005, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this project. A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report was prepared by P & D Consulting and submitted to the City on September 28, 2005. The City prepared a shortened CEQA review request that was authorized by the State Clearinghouse on September 26, 2005. As a result, the public review period for this project was from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. The following impacts are identified in the Draft EIR as Unavoidable Significant Impacts: . Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts . Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency flights . Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts helicopter . The following have been identified in the Draft EIR as Potentially Significant Impacts that Can be mitigated: . Aesthetics - Light and Glare . Noise - Operational Impacts . Transportation - Project Impacts Based on the followina mitiaations, staff recommends certification of the EIR for the proiect. IMPACT AREA MITIGATION Air Quality AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RT A) for a final location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TOM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TOM techniques shall include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and van pooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices. . R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC I l-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc 24 . AQ-3. The applicanVpermittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards appropriate for medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of California regulations. AQ-4. The applicanVpermittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to prevent dust and erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be installed at the applicanVpermittee's expense. AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities,' the applicanVpermittee shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth-moving and large equipment are properly tuned and mainlained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably possible. AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access roadway's. The City Public Works Director reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the project construction. AQ-7. The applicanVpermittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of. Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the following examples listed below: . . . Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site inactive for over four days. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion. Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon. Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour. Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary coverings. Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. . . . . . . . The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. Compliance with The Fuaitive Dust Control Plan shall be R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 25 subject to periodic site monitoring by the City AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. . AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel. AQ-10. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. AQ-11. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. AQ-12. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per . day, at the end of each day of grading and/or construction. AQ-13. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VaG) content architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the project to the maximum extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (RaG) emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coatings. The following websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content coatings: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdaslbrochures/Super-Compliant_AI M .pdf http://www.delta-institute.org/publications/paints.pdf AQ-15. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. . R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11~16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc 26 . . . Noise AG-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and Hiahwav 79 South) to nromote alternative lransportation. N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully operational upon completion of project construction, the applicant/permittee shall conduct continuous, 24-hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that may be in place at the time, the applicant/permittee shall implement measures to achieve the thresholds or olher adopted criteria. Such measures may include. but not be limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance. N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for critical patient transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit for an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits. N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of a preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast. N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to four per day, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings on the 'site to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the General Plan. N-6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and other restrictions set forth in the City of Temecula Municipal Code. N-7 All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to minimize noise. Transportation N-8 During demolition and construction operations, the applicant/permittee shall stage all stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical from surroundino residential oroperties. T .1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way with the following configuration: . Westbound: 1 right-turn lane 3 through lanes 1 left-turn lane Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes 2 through lanes 1 shared throughlright lane Northbound: 1 left-turn lane 1 shared throuoh/ri!)ht lane R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 1 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc 27 Southbound: 2 lefl-turn lanes 1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide) . T-2. The project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South intersection at 1-15. T-S. The project applicant/permittee will contribute a fair share toward the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the project's contribution toward cumulative impacts: Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps: Additional southbound left- turn lane Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps: Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert westbound right lane to free right turn Highway 79 South/La Paz Road: Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and one shared through/right lane Highway 79 SouthlPechanga Parkway: Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus eastbound and northbound free right-turn lanes Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way: Signalize and provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-turn lanes with a shared through/right-turn lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane . for westbound approach. Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road: Provide southbound and eastbound dual left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps. Aesthetics T -4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola Road developed to the specifications of the Public Works Director. A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed light levels for the entire project site onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate potential light impacts. A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare emitted from the upper floors. A-S. The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent 10 residential parcels. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 28 . . . CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has identified various issues of concern. In addition, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, which has identified potentially significant environmental impacts. Staff has included Conditions of Approval and has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program that addresses these concerns and reduces the potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, and PA04-0571 based upon the findings and the attached Conditions of Approval. The proposed project provides a multitude of benefits and services that are needed within the community. The project is considered an economic benefit because the City will now have a regional health care facility that will attract additional medical services, medical offices and related uses and facilities. In addition, quality health care is a desired element that is sought after by companies looking to establish and/or relocate to the City of Temecula. FINDINGS 1. Statement of Overriding Consideration The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in the EIR but cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant: short-term and long-term project and cumulative air quality impacts, noise impacts associated with the potential number of emergency helicopter flights, and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. a. All significant environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital's construction and operation have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of less than significant, except for those impacts cited above. b. Other reasonable alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital that could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Temecula Regional Hospital have been considered and rejected in favor of the Temecula Regional Hospital. c. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Temecula Regional Hospital override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Temecula Regional Hospital. 2. General Plan Amendment a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed hospital meets Goal 1 of the City's General Plan Land Use Element which states that the City wishes to have a "diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses." Additionally, Policy 1.8 under the Land Use Element Goal 1 encourages ''future development of a community hospital and related services, as well as a community college, major college or university." R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16--D5\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 29 b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the . surrounding area due to site design and extensive landscape screening. 3. Zone Change a. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map. The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan Amendment, the site is physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in this area, and the proposed zone change would further the City's long-term economic development goals. b. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the diversity of uses desired in the General Plan and will create a balanced community with additional public services available to the community. 4. Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.01 OE) a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1 )" "a City ,of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected . and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "a City which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns (Goal 8)." The proposed project provides a regional use that needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a State, highway. The project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Conditions of Approval in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological impacts and air quality has been reviewed and conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid-rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, . buildings or structures. An Initial Study and an EIR was prepared, which identified R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 30 . . . c. potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and biology to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the State highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the Conditions of Approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the State highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the State highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than 14 mile from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, bui!dings or structures. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320- bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31-acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320- bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually contribute to the long-term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) and/or the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with applicable building and fire codes. d. R:\C II P\2004\04-0463 Tcmecula Regional Hospilal\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 vl.doc 31 e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad . facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels. 5. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, State law and the General Plan. b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes. 6. Tentative ParcelITract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400 a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the . City of T emecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment; b. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract; c. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant; d. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with appropriate Conditions of Approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, an EIR and a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared and is recommended for certification by the City Council prior to action on the Application; e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; f. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; . R\C U P\2004\Q4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC Il-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 32 . . . e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels. 5. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, State law and the General Plan. b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes. Tentative Parcel/Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400 a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment; b. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract; c. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant; d. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with appropriate Conditions of Approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, an EIR and a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared and is recommended for certification by the City Council prior to action on the Application; e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; f. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; 6. R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC~STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 33 g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property . within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided; The subdivision is a commercial/office project and is not subject to Quimby fees. h. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Plan Reductions - Blue Page 35 2. PC Resolution No. 05-_ (Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report) - Blue Page 36 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_ 3. PC Resolution No. 05- _ (General Plan Amendment) - Blue Page 37 Exhibit A- City Council Resolution 05-_ 4. PC Resolution No. 05 _ (Zone Change) - Blue Page 38 Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance No. 05-_ 5. PC Resolution No. 05-_ (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) - Blue Page 39 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_ 6. PC Resolution No. 05-_ (Tentative Parcel Map) - Blue Page 40 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_ . 7. Response to Comment Letters received on Draft EIR - Blue Page 41 8. Comment Letters Received - Blue Page 42 9. Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report - Blue Page 43 10. Authorization of Shortened Public Review of Draft EIR - Blue Page 44 11. Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR - Blue Page 45 12. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report - Blue Page 46 13. Initial Study for Draft EIR - Blue Page 47 . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 vl.doc 34 . . . 14. Planning Commission Minutes, April 20, 2005 - Blue Page 48 15. Planning Commission Agenda Packet, April 20, 2005 - Blue Page 49 16. Planning Commission Agenda Packet, April 6, 2005 - Blue Page 50 R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 1 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1- 16-05 v2.doc 35 . . . ~,-:~~,-- ATTACHMENT NO.1 PLAN REDUCTIONS R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc 36 , .' ..0.. . . .. _ .... __" ...~ . ;. C~'. "'"" '::~ :~::o..~_~it~&~~,,;,~~~~ij~.~ ,:~",j4c,~~~_~~-;':;:;;'~bt;Ci~:~~1S~'~~:~,:H,,~~;::;J_.:t;;~ ~~~L,jiii*i-:~ :i20.-};:;';-'i:.:c~f,;~~i~':;.:.,;~~_ _~..,: ~-S~~';:~~ic.ii:;4~-~';;i:;,:1 ~ ,2) ~ ~ ~ ~l I~; II I" UJ I!, Ill'II,I'IV III ~j II Iii J!~ ~ I ~ I - !illil Ii Ili!!!! 1!111!!:1I I '" <l 'Sea to ~:::: :; Ego g C1)O E ....~ {! o o " OM ,~ ,ill ... o . . let G. Ie. llfl/'Iii nILII,! 115~ Ii ., f : :fm......mm...m....nn........j '\'5\! Il~ I I ":\, I t i .: i a \\ : I~II \~\\\, / I L' I ... '~t\\ : ,----____ ',t '\ "~ ~~ ' &r ----, \ ~ ~ II I !j :\\\ I" 'I' I X\", ' ',~" (" ~ 'I' p' ~4,,- t -."" \, \ ..~I~ 1 ir '., ~ ~ '.i.tH'i t ~~ .__,~,.@~I~J'~~:~?~@~. fit !~i~ i: , ',J / "~\ Ii; ll~ .1..j.~~~:J~~..JI ~\{,~ i c3 ~\l~ (,i.! N(Jg~rM; 7~' f Imlliilii . ~~\ \ lr 11 i h \ :1:, I , 'I I, II ~ ~ i! I" 1=; 1. '}.. I I I ~I 5, ~ i i ill ~,~~!t]; ~ ~ ! . ! ~ U III o ji. "_ ,;,--, .-<"~.i \.~!-! \ \ 'I \ d ; H ~~ ;.~/ t/(~- ~ ~ ....-/'// "-._~ ~ --:-.__ /~~~_~_::-- C .,: I" w'r'I'f'fIif'I"'-'N g.. l~.. m I, I I I;' ~.: ~H;'I';'H.I'rm J;. I Jm mftH. "+". - i--~ I ll. '" ib! ~IJ ,j '!Ii!h.!~.!i . '. IJ! Ill" I Ii' I I' " :; Iii. Iflll!1 '!' i'1' Illl, II"'" i'I' ilnl! II I, 'II 11:.1 II i I I I I I , , iI I! i; I! i i I! i 1 II ill! !, rjll ,. Ii! I "'I! ii', I,! I '. HI , .dlll !Ill I l( ill.1t 1I1'ldll II Ii Ii!! i IHi II i Ii I!H p! III i 1I II I ' , , , , , UI ijI III III ~! . ~! . !i1q ~p l I I ~I! illl! il III ,i.1.1118.!JIl i "I. I dUn I Iilln !l'" I . . ,. i11i I i: N o I J j I j' j' j / j (/) g . ~ _Ii ,I I l d I'V IIi ""<lII/'!II'- a> Ihl ,!iI Ii ,ll 'II III III :11 I .. ~ 'Sea ri g= '3 E go ~ Gl 0 ....i 1-:1: g :~ ___.Ieo W~. II e. "" ! Ie- ill , : ~" " 1 I :1 r !! : :1 J ~ : : I I' ., iP N 0 . . I ~ ICC . l ~ i1 ~l ~~ II' :': =j ,_ a "'- .. 'f Q : r--------- , , : , , , , , , !r~ :41 ,.. ,.. , . , , , : , , \ ....----- --=- r----- ( , , , ! . " , , ! : : : I , , , , i lu ',- Ii: : , , I :!, :, f ---- ----- ./ 'W, ~ .. Il! IH~ 'J.,-,. " @l !@l ! @1~ i @l: iD ilt. iDiDf'L' II " Ell I, "," Ell /'i'j; ~ $III~ , ~----=r .. "--rn. . ::;-:;:: ...__ .....1nJ ,..,.._ r- i : , I f I: . , I] If . ,.,.....-... III i' I' j I j (f) ; "I I~ Il, ,11,,1, iI' V I; I, "I"i/I',"!I- !' I' I, 1', I" Ii" ,I,! ild ,i Iii hl III h, "I I , ~ ~I\ 'Ie. II I I; , i il .. u .; '5 ~ E /!. .. '5(6 u- ,,- E~ ,,0 1-:1: liilllll !lih;1 g -"nU. :! ,~ .f. ~ I lif ! " , I i1--------------------------------------~ " , " , " , " , :: ~ 1'---_____ " , " , " , " , " J ' " , " , :: f\ $ tB ' ~ .__.~..~.~~~."w ~,~~~. ............................ I I I I I I I I D II Dl . N()g'Z2'26"'7~' ---.-:- -- ---.--=:. ----~~ q\ ~,,\\ 1] z 0 ;: i 0. a: . 0 I ! ! I en .,1, ml! I w I 0 ! ! " , ~!I ,II z ; ;;;J ~ii WI' c;; w .: Wtl I m ~ I .. ~m!n , .. %.. :l: . . . . . 0. ~ I , ~~ I. f :z:!: A. ... o , . let r '4 II I, Ii Ii " ii ,Ii I ; ii ., \i i! " il ,. 111 III I: , , : , : ~' ! , , i ~I 1 il il '! 5, foo-~- I \,.----- ~ I roo" Tli V 1'1 r~ 'I ill Iii iii II " III "[ II ill !1 " iill ill II I " I ii I ,'III III II ~mm. II I i! I ,II II "I H ill " I !I I 11 1 :i I 11 I 'illl ~ J II j' i' I / I Cf) I '! d I! I'l,l I'V 111'1'1'llll'!!II- 2) Ihl Ii! Ii III Iii Ihlll 'II I .lJ i' ., 8 "" /~ IIh i~ I~ Ie. I.. . .. <i. 'Sea .u g::= ~ e Et g .. 0 ...i 1-:1: I ~ ' r r n r. I ~ r ~ r r r ~ i ~~ 'I 1 II I ~ ~ " I' ' ! ' !.:..\; (J 'I ' I' '-'It- Ii l- []i:JI - ~ Iii n"!-~~i i 1C'''^''i : i ! i 061. 0 ill I' I H' i II iii' i ! 1 I i 'I Ii! - I' il f p' I I I: t 1 I i 01 -i!,-,ti . , . , .--t--'t'--- :'u(t i! T T - i~" I 1 !.~ rn~ III I"..i ~I:r. I "' 1 ! .!&! !! i! - .~ i i ! I " !, r'jl-'-" ffI !I';! ~, " ! ! ! 00 GIl! I +- !-t - i i!' I !,!' r- I ~ g ! 'I : ! ! ! !&g& ! ! ! 0 !! - "". ~,' i i I 'I. 1 , rf7j, 1 IlL It.. _L1 I, 1 1\lIL.,gjI_.,_1 i.=. ~=.~ I - f= 1 l'~":: ;:'~d "~l' , !~..J '; , ,i i 1-'&1 j - "1' ~. :f 12. . U.. ;' ;' "J !., ' '-, NL .. I '.' - [b<1!lj I!! i1 it jl jl " '"1'! I I L ~-=- " I! = ;L.ll:' i .1 Lrl ~ "1;' ~;':;: + I '~ ~'I' ?lm I: l r U_ I - ~ii::...si ~.., ff'I i~ , 14 ~ J:j~ -_ !! T ~, ~'J. ! ,..il.rrlll@ .: I _ ~ ~ :,~~ ~ LJ ~ I I J___L_ 'I.:) "r.-I:~~I'~!! ! ~ I IU' , ~ Tin. II ~':: ::: IE i ' !1tiJi;' :II'" !__J ~ ~ : I I I ~ I, ~ ~'TA ',. ii, ._ =n! '.' I .. ,~ ' I a ,.. .. ,.. It'. '-.,- O~ '11 .. 1 ..1 ~ I ~~ -,--, ~ ~f. ~- u 00 L, ~ :'1' I ~II~: tr~JJf~:~ ~ ktt!(:,~ti: ,: r' ~ 'p>-, J...:-!l, ~Jiiiii~'h ~ .. :h:rr; ",! i I~ I :lm1i ~;r.. I : 'I!O U' r '-""r-']I~~j~ ,<;. A, u1Ui ...'1 .-.-11.,+-5-, c_. "'" '"I ' . . -..i..-.' ' , .. . i i #j . II' J>>' i i ,.. Ifc-j, iM . . 0, -~1 :,~~ ! 1 . j.....-'-'-II~ I:'~ , Ii ~R'I^ilil]'; ~ ~1E,!e]Ir7' i - ~+J,6~;~~;v, J ) . ~ i"': I' I >:;t' ,'lI Q ~ .~~~ '!' __, I'.... 0 cI' )i; . :o(l 'tf. 1 I 'f ifn;;., l~ .i1. I ~ ! ~ ! IIJ i, I II .. ; , , 'm.,. ..... ~~~I'l t1'J;, "ll f, ~'4.,," .' '_",-- ! rs-/"I "'" . '11H:'" I I~ 1- 'I I! r-! ',ct', f f , --' I l'J , I U "llIl ~ il"~. III F\;.!, 'I' j LJ i I. I'!I \g' f I -- I'''''''' ' I' I 1m '.1;'1 I ~ ~ ' ( , !i \:m' . . 'I .~ I E..!!to: " [-I" i j ! i~r'A rn'-;-~ r~.,~ ' oj. . ~I [ I '~~:~ : 'n=!':~-I ~:t-'t::~..b ~f:J5"L ir; . :,j 111,11~ lei · . II D'~!:l i i '1_,_ ii NJi' I! ",0 ! \ ,. jL:.JI,' . 'II ""', ff"-' .. 1111- , \' i!!---t . " 1."""-'. ., 'II~=: . . !! i . i i i f ~ ,- -----1~- r'i""i"""i~i .t I i--Inn rh ( ffi -....-... -.... :. . ~ Jlll'j' I ' j UJ fill ~ ; ~~ I 1" I 'I"" . . I I' I' Ii "I 'I :illll" !! II V 2) Iii! Iii! Ii III IIi illll!1 :11 I i i t.P.i. ~~ ; ~- J. _M 1- o (.) 0:') I,:) \,:/ .. .. -s-.. 0 .; g:a ~ EUl . ,,0 E I-:I: ~ I ~ i II i ' I , II' I I I i I I ! ~ I t I i I g o 'Ii ,~ '<0 G. Ie. <;> C;) C;:' i i (0) T i ()---- 1::)-. S\--o ()-. ()-, 0-' 0---- !~ < 5. N III till,.. 1m ici ~ ! II .< .. o ,.,.....-.... -.... ~ J j I J. i' j' I ,,, i ~I " VJ f - 1- i'V I; ! Ii = . II 'i 'I ';Iil"~!l lI_ S!) hi ,Ii! Ii III ill III I!!! 'II I " i r --"t -- j -- 1 -- C) 0') ~'; t,:) I ~! II ill i c!: i I h ~ I J I 1IIIIm lei . " <l '316 ft g== '8 E~ CD <1)0 E ....~ ~ o o o ,,.; .~ .:8 (;I. Ie. ? ?? 0,.. ,':.>----- '- ~l--.. l.:)--- C:)-u., t.::>----- ()---- 0.-- 0-' ! 0-..~L- 10 T ~ ! I! l' .~ ... o . . - ... -. ........-- '"""'.... J j II' i'll t (1'\ ; I Ii U.J. I! i I d i'V I"""', .!'l- Illl.lil Ii lli Iii III ,Ii II I .. ~ '3s . ga. -I" e", .,0 ~J: ~ ii I~J ~ fig !i j,:~,l j- ., ., ... m iei -'-,'" ~ u ... Cl " :~t I" .. "-/ "-/ / /"- ~, ~ / "- ~ 2) J I j ~' I' I / ' (J) '! i ., 11/ I." I' l,,' I' ,'I 'V J 4j j ~i iQ I ~ _ :/1 ,iiI Ii IIi ili IfiI III 'llI I .h ~ g=: ~ E~ g ",0 E ....:t: ~ I Iii III !H- llldll llll i I! II ! 'I 'i Ii Cl: II I' II "I! ~ i hi I ! I i I lal i ci i ,~ ~ 8 ." .~ ,18 C':). Ie. ~ ! S' II .. o . . .,......-.... ....- ~ III I! I-I II I Ii (f) 52 II! t, "l;.l,"!jll 'i ~ Co, II!!!" I, h, II' 'Ill nl'!1 I' ~ oIlll!!llil!lII,!uL co ~ 'EiCB u- r.i cue. '5 Ell) ~ ,,0 E I-:I: {!. HH ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ,....,~ I" ~ . " . 'L'1'.,;r.-. _, F >, .',',. >," " . ! i I -I' . , ii N CI o o o ~M .~ ,:8 III i 11''1 /. II , 'I i : i' I i I I111111 i cc' i~ III ~.. 'I'" II~U IcC e. Ie. - -"- .,... -....-... .....- ~ 2) J II jl j II I I'i (J) I! ! I d! i;V ill" "';1;/' !II- UII iiI Ii 'Ii !Ii III I!! III I fa ~ :i ii Ill~ o~ '3 "'Q, g e0 E ",0 t-J: ~ ,'j i i i-'-1-1 , 'i i i 'ii i i I '-'~j- '--i- i i I i --+H- -,i!-,- I 1 1 --,i-,+-, , i i ! i i i U_._. i i '" I, I ,-, ,-,+-, -'--+,-, ! __L__ i i i i i Ii i' '-'r-'-'~i-'-'-r'--'--' -'--''-'-'-j--'-'-r'-'-' 1 ___,L_j__, , I I 1 i! ! i i 'I,:" ' ,-I-, , 1 I' . , -,-I,___,!-,_,_I_,_, i i I i i i t j"1' .....' , i ,- ---I-_ I i "11111 Hill g liii: ~s! ,:g o-m o-m ~vv ~mmm :::: =~ G. G. G. o-m Q i Ii ! , , ' Ii ~ ~ I I ~ i i l i ".:.., .' ~l II .. .... CD co co II:w,U ~ i ~ ., il .. co ++-.- i i j i i i i i "r- i ~ ! I . ~, ii N co I' .! ... N I H~ lei . . i i 'i I ! ~l I I "d I 5 1 i I I 9 I . i ~l II I: III ., .., co co co ....--.... --- ~ 2) co ~ "Sc; g~ ~ eg. lil ",0 E ....:c {!. t: it .IJ J ~ ~ JI jl ~ I j'i UJ II ! I ,s !'V Ii 'I 'I';'I;:I!II- Ihl iii Ii IIi IIi ill I!! lil I "1111/ !ill ~ g HF II !i o :;;0(') Q0 (')00 0 T 'pM r'.:M;.-~l,rX ..... ,.~..T ...~ T"'AT_AJ n. T j Ii! i j j j j i~-' ' i-,-j-j-j--+-- . . . j-I--,-I--- i i j j i i j i j i i --t'" '--j-' I r i j I j j -,-H+ -,il-- H-j- :-'- i j i I I! I ,--,i-+- -i-,- . i j i i j j i j--L I I I I ,-,+-, ---+,-, I ." ,_,_,_,_..:....L__ i __1,__ i y-y -- ? -.? -. ? -- ? -- ? -- ? -- ? -- ? -. ?-.y !! i i i j i Ii! i i +- ,- ._-'-'-~'-j'-'-T-T'-'- ! j j I j j j I j ,I I j' ! j j i --r--r-'T-'---j-- j j i --'--~j-'-'T-- j i i I '1'-'- j i j i --TI'-i-- ,j i I i Ii " j i I:i-,:...,./.---j-- (, , , , -,...l,-,-,L,-,-I_,_,...l,_,_, i i j j i j j I -+-'-1---j'--+-, i i i i 'I j j 'i-- i i --i-,- ,--1-,- j , i i' ., N . N ;5q ...; I · ~. I'" ~ I m I L ",. lij ... o ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ! "~ iii N o ...... .......-.... -.... ~' 1 ~ i ~; j i ~ Il'i UJ I ! I' i'V 8, g l!~E I . If j! i!li!!!!!'1i !l_ 2) h! 'id II il ,il'!! III "I I '" <l '5:5 .. U._ "Ei "a. ~ Eo> E ..0 I-:r:: ~ iI/Ill! ~ 111.1 'ii! J ;IID j,~ W .lJ '. ! ... o 2 ~ "! 16 N o ...... ........ -...... I ., C'l N 1m je( . . . ~ j lll~ r j j r UJ .. '" ! ,! ji 'SUi u Ij i! i! I! lif! Ii ,iY u- '" ..Ci. '5 8 u 2) hi lid II iilld II! hl:11 I E'" . ..0 E ,,; 1-:1: ~ ,~ ----- ,18 ...... + ... + + + 1 ' f, g~o .f. ~fo ~fo ~o ~o 5~~81~ e" 0" ~" . r. ,e ~~ j~ ~r8 1-""- z'_ ~f~ o.:lo.:jl ~~ ~i' ~jd 0' :i:;;L.l,d e,L;i ~J~ t::"" 0', .-.ft .11-,1 .9-,1 .9-,1 . , l:wJI " ., II ,~ I is; 1< ++ ... ... ... + + l' l .1 1 -I "'~c '0 ~o 8~o 8~'f 8~o '"+~'"g ~! ~~:. ~t~ ~~ ~,,~- ~::! ~.~ a;~a:i~ ~i~ ~l, ~i~ 8j~ ~~ r J;", ." e" ." ~:d 0' .11-,0 .9-,n .9-,n .9-,n .O-.~l ,o-..L j ! ~ ~, U N Cl . ; ! . ~ il ... Cl ~- ........-.... ~ J Ill' I' j j j ", ; i Ii UJ I! '! I'; !'V ill I! I! !l! II! I' 11,1'- 2) M lid ;1 .1 "I III lIB ..1 I tII ~ ~c; g= .; E~ g .,0 ....~ ,1-:1: ++ ~o ro ~LI~!,:, ~P"i~ ~!d~j1' + ,j- 8[r ~tl' ':r :!f~ ~:: ~ 8!. ! ~ lij'd t- .'0 8[' !t:8 .!~ <' j- ~tl' ~i~ e:~ .9-,1:l .O-.~l ~ g .:;i .~ __ltO 'wll - . ~. " Ie. II ~ I 5 it N o t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F "r~ 0", "r8 ~~ ." ~F ~~ ~j~ .1" .'" S-.~l .9-,tl .9-,tl .9,1:1 .C-.~l ~ : .O-.U I, I . I' ., .1 ItI ohi~ . . ; '~ 5 u .. o . . ........-.. -""'" I I ~ Ii' r Il j (J) .. ~ i! II :is I! I I d 'IV .. u_ '5 Illil"lj'l'I'i- GlQ. 0 hi IIi! li,U!!i,III!:d I eO) . ,,0 ~ I-:I: ++ + + + + U. fo .f. gfo jo ~~' "" ~ 8" c" 8:' i~~I~ ' cr~ or. c'r~ n;!~..:i!. ~~ ~i' O' ~i~ 81~ J;.w.J,W F,i:i ..w li::w ", .9-.fl .9-.rl .9-,1 , .' "-''f -to- II (9. "" Ie. ,I ,~ .:;j ,;~. ++ + + + + l' Lo J. ~!~ ..t '0 ~.., ~r~~~ ~~ ~~ o~ ~f8 a;i~",~ . ~~ . ~r; 8i~ .j, ;1;:",-" i=:;;l . tl,.., .;" '-. .9-,0 .!I-,n .9-,n .0- ,5 ~ .o-''f i ~ II Ie liUjci ," . ~ I il ... C> .........-.... ~ J j I j'j' 1/ I ,,, . !tj .i VJ 'I! ill,i I'V II I!. I! Ii! Illi' II,!'- 2) hI Illl 11 iii ,J'lli! ,II I ++ t . ~ ,)0...,., (0 8~' 2" :-:. -t2-fl "I' o ~[~~~ g:d ~ r-r ..." ! ~ i j : ~~i i I j~, : i I I t t + 8r~ ~r,;, 8r'i' c:'~~ o~ c';g @!. S!. tn!~" ~.f' "i" ~." I .9-,r.~_.~ .9-.0 ~ .O-,Sl f ! i i . ~ ~~ II N o co ~ "3c; J ~:a s Eu> ~ ,,0 E ....J: j!!. W 1 t' ,,, III ., 0 d II III, ! .... g \SI. 1- N .M ~ ~ ~ i c:i ,m Ie. ,I! I .ilI . ++ + it t ~ ,to~t- ~o g., c'['i' I I _, ~rre d' ~:g :~ ",-i~ o~ ...:8 '1- o;l.o;!~ 8:~ g;:, g:d "I' ":d~'" T ~l~ -I ~." , .9-,0 j .s-,n j .O-,SI i l ,H.'-'" . . 8 1 . : .0-,,9 I 0 ~ : i 1 ; ~ s~! : >' i ! !. ~~, . 1 II i .... 0 ~ . . "'...... -...... ....- i I i I I ~ , w ;! " " " 9 0 " 0 " 1&' to 0 to 0' ~~ 0' 0" o. 0< 00 0< ~, roo 1 '" 0 w " , 9 il " '" ~ I ~ , " " " . 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 1111'/' j I j '1'1 ; i I~ ~J ,!, i! 01 i'V . 11'1 'i'ilij'!!l'- 2) hl11i1 Ii IIi !Ii il! ill :11 I ~ w " 9 ~ , , " .. ~ '5j fIf g"Q. '5 eo> g .,0 E t-::J: f!. -t.. II e. N" Ie. II i' I! ""., ~. l"I 1m lei 8 Il~ '.. ... i --------.----------, !!Ii i i i , ~ i! Iii ... o , [;jJj ;' .8 o' ;;~ 00 CD ! CD . CD , , , , ,--~ {Ji~HJi[=Jig w " 9 " " -....-.... -- '" 1'1" II I h N .' ~ J ~ i ~; r ~ Ii' V)' .. i il'! ., . ~I Ii' 3:5 " I! i 1,1 liV ,,- ~ 'If 'I 'II';I,I.I!I- "a. , 8 I' " Sill ~ (Sl. I hilll!1 ! ~. C"l 2> liil,lil Ii 'll IIi ,!ll!!:1I I ..0 E ,,; i I H IcC ....:1: ~ .~ Ie. .ill . I ~ l l . I! ~ I! 15 ~ IIi eU 8' N .. 0 0 Ii , ~ ~ .. .---. ~ ..~ , ~ "1!5 ..., "'~::' om ~ "1!5 . ~ ~ ~ Ii ~, y .. , ~ "1!5 , ~ "1!5 ~~ /;; " I] , ~<:\ ~ "1!5 !; !; . - --- .. .. ~ ---~ ----,iims:=::: ,.., ... -_.~ ------ 0, --.-.- u__._____ .. ------._-~--_.. p -._-- . ...... ........-... ........ ,~ i . " i o_ w 5 i i ~- ~ ; ! ! ;; E , , i ! .~ I ~ ~8 ~" . . II !, I u III ., . 0, 0 3! '" 0 ~ 2) Illllllj Il"U) ,I, I! ,I i'V IIi" 'j';l;j'!!ll- iii .Ill Ii IIi Iii ,11111 'Ii I j.: ;t glJ 0[1 ~.,... 1:'.... ~!: ~i~ i;:icl G::jL;/ 1-o-.,1i i ! i i i ~ . ; E , ~ ~ i ~, II C'l o ~ca 1 ~~ "S E g. ~ ",0 e ....1: ~ I: -t JJ .. g o i~ '.. -._____:'10 ~ gll i::'~ :;;1: ~it;:l :t sl? c'. ~i~ "1' + 8l? "" 1- ." l4jcl {o ~ l::'r~ ~,... ~i~ t;;i~ -=,.. ~i;j + 8l'i' Ii:g ~r. <'~ .0-,11 ".0-,91 g ! i ! , j I! N o I I , . . ~ Ii .. o .....""-... I .' I p) hl~ , ' j" ,. I ' j (fJ ". ~ I , I' ; I Z I' ~ ~ I I i '~I : Ii .. i I 1</:\ .; '1,! "Ill' l' j' 'VI "5(0 .1 ,_ I i ~"l II t~ u- .!2' - -<:: ': , Iii, I: i! ~Il! 'Ii! Ii' II J' - "'c, G . - ~ 1 8 II wZ J!i! t! II .liI rhJIL .,1 I Eo> al .:<t I.t 0 I G' 11 ~~ d. 2) ",0 E.. I. ,,; Ie. ' " ~J: . ' ,'" 118" ... . ,ill I u I I Ii' ! I I I I I, i :~ I 'I I , , , ;1 . , , , , '--t-, __ ' I Ii ( , if I 'II' ~ I I ~! !\'--', j t-'-'~'-- , I" Ii ' , , ~~~ f-- ~,' .Il ... '" J. ..~ i i :r: I }:'g! I]; J " . I ~ ", AI 9~,?;&O N !:: I ~ !~I ," ,_, '" >-- , \ \ , , .e ~~.. /-tl3~4 \ \ ____ ~./_.-r-\' \ \ -~-~~-\\\ \\ -:/ \ \\ \ \. I '" ' /' \\ ~ j,,-, I, "n I , \ ;\h- 1 w~ ,I I r\'-~ 'C' J ~ \ \' -- I 1 '\ \ ,I ~ ~, 'II ____ cr.. i\ -~ ~~ ~ ,,"\\~\:r\!\, \ \., \ \' \ '" 'r, . ~,_\.. ~-- \ \ \ ----..--:"~ \ \r----" c ~ ~, I " !I '11111'1'111 ! I, h I III'II! 1111 millll I hlli!Ui " :t1o,ho , .. , , , I , I , , , I I I / - ~ c:;,_<.:. i;,~ ~~t; ~ ~~ :; , 'tlA)HA'YNOQ ~ I; I': I! i I n l:5 I_I.!:;:I iii <:1'1':1'111 .... I II S ! ,~ ! t I ; I' ..: i ,: I ~,I " 1\li\1 II l!::ill! ~'jf'l~ "'1--'09' <l: lih ~~ . -~_._-----~-_._--_._-~--~- ........ -..... , ' , I' r; I I. (JJ oil ,~ I III , Z ~1 ~ " ' II j . ~s .; ~I [ · II [ I: V "3'iG 0, I , I:>" 0- fl I' I li:o 'I; ,I II ,jl !' I ,,- 0 I ! ~~ II 'l'i'i'111!' :1- " ~!il~li!~lillli i!ilillllU!:1I I Eg- o G' ;;.. I! N 0 ~li I 111l~ ' Ii 2) ,,0 E' ,.. 1-:1: .' ," le, i i I I 100 18 ...., ,::: ! --.-..---- -.----- .1 I I I i , " +-- ~ , -+ ~ J-- in riJ z o >= o w '" , '11 -t-: " p z o >= frl '" it " z o >= o w '" 1-1-1-' , :.J- --1-,' I__L i I} r- -r--; I 'L.. I --l- " II z o i3 w '" 'I I I I ' I. I, t" i-:rl:" , , , ~ , , 1 _t-o i ___ ...-I-~ ' I 4+1,,- I ; : , ,-" -+- I '-1-: ..J..J." , IJ 1-:+1-' -1-1;h- "fU-~,-- -L1:i1'-~" ; I t ",+Irt-' ii ---.--------------------------- ------ --- --------.. j, I "1-- -t T- I -i .. Ij. z o i3 w '" .. ;. z o >= o w. . '" -.- I I i-f- --I-. , .~- I I I ,- j -i- I .. .. I 'f- , I +- ..-. , +- ,'- I I i I i , I , I -1 j .. " '/ 1- , I " !I ;! jj-' I ii. I ,t. ; , . .1 " s; z o >= o w '" ~ 2) ~II I I II Ii I . I I'! (f)V II,; , ,'Iii .,1 !' I, 'ills j!s j! Ii! 1Il1!/, Ii,l" - /I.I! i,l! "llln iM 11.1 L <II I , 1 . , r..i "'ii ~~ f: I ,"11'1" i'l I' !I ! I'I! Ii ,!I ii i 1111 .'1'1 II' .", :t I', i1::iI1lhi,!!!lll: ,I. Ii! I: '~.il! !'l~ I!! il! i " Iljh11lii1lliil'i 1I11 Iii ~ jlJ l! ),"/: Iii! ,l.Il~1 ~ " ~ ! - lH II It. i I i I ,I . J ~ II , i II II , ! ! I I 11,'1!1I!, .! I a ~ II r", II ... 'II" ~f ~! II i Illdlli I I II _11" l! !: ii! !II! II I!! bi !1i!1'11,ll!',II'! "'Ii il'jl, ill ' I II! I : I !!.III 11I1!l1II I ,:111 ! 'ii'!li IP,ll,l, ; !liI 1 !I!I!I.!I I!lll !!ill C\'l (j 3m ri (J.t:: "5 '" 0. u eO) . ",0 E .....x ~ I I! 1III ! 11!:5 !l ! i III! I,' I II fu~ ~ I I I I ()o '" ,ill II i II i III: ~~ l~ ()CJ () . " 'Ii "'1m III ,II ill II I" I!! li,l " I'~:: 'i Ii, I:~ ill!i ill ,I, I! ,Ii , , . ,'I ' !'':I , ! i I I'! ,II'! I II;. Ii ! I II 11'1' ! ,.I I !, in j! Ii I! lI:!q !P1! I: II i il 1!J1i! ! i II ,II If II i IJ i I!! II !Iii lllli 11 Ii !ii, II ii Illll!I!I!I! ~ . ,'I 'I "ill" 1".1 '1 i ", '1- ',"!, II I' I 'II ~ l "I Ii'" , ., II. II"" " · i iljii:l " I! i:ll! !i Ili;1 Ii u!li !ii il ~!Ii .111,;1 1'!lI. ill II I! Ii if! illl! !: 1" 11 !i !II !b ~II !!m !il !l !:~! 1!1l1 !Ii !! !' ! r: " , ~ i ~ - I II 11'1 1,.1 ,II I 'I ' !I !II!, ,ll' i :lll:I:1 , '11"11 ,I!' II",,, .' I' I '!Ihl. I!II ill',.il!! II I~ I" ,,-II '11iI I I -'I' I' '! : jlll'I'lli,11i ';!Jill.II,'1 II 'Iii H Iii" liHI" " i, q ,I !l,'! ," ;',I! I !IPI I'll lin I! I " o III I d:! I illl 'II ii' '" 'I' liP I ~ !il , I! ~!_ ill I:!i il! ! lit, illllj,II'!' I !1!ll! !i ill! .m 11(- !1!1 ! !!ii'lli lilJi Ir nl ; !'!i !i ~i !II! !!n !II! !m ! I!I!I,!I !llil !lIm . " .: (' , r all,,,, , "'1~' , r~ .. , '. !IIIIH"i! :1", '1Ihlll,'! I I.., I, 'I II' 1IIIilll'!" lillllllllli I' IIII ! il !1!li!ll~ '! l," i i 'I ! Illll!I!:, '""1' I.!lll/'i; I! ',M I " "', ' ,. i , 1'111"11' 'I"~ Iii' I' I I 'Ii I , i !I Ull!!j! 'Ii .Ii! : ill !Illliill i 1'!I!! !'lliiU 111!!11' Ii I ~ i,rtlJ ~ It,ll I 'I': ~ i~~hl!II\1 i~, i~,l ! Iii lU '1' f II' 1(," I'j I .11 'll hll, /1' li'llld ! .,III'hl II !~ i Iii il! iillliil , !ii lilil!! i!l !i 1! !!i:llii:lb chili !illilliii!i 1! ii !II! 1; ii , " I ~ ~ ,;.111:. ..',1(1:. 11 l, t~; I " --- '" ill:' i ill!I'ijl'! illlliijl ill' II i!i 1 ~T !I ii i l!i!l!i1i!,'!,I!i!l!llii i fll!!, ili 1!lii!b n !: I" !I!III!ilil.,! 11"11!~il i II \, I,!! Ii! 'II ;illl,i ~ p " '. I "I' "1 i II ' ,.\ 1111' , Q ,; !'jl ""111/' 'I 'Ilil!1 ail .111:11" ~ !. II " . , ' , II !,II' I,. 'ii' II , i ~ I II 'j' Ii I 1I1!lillll'll " II It I Ilil II I!!!l il · ! ,!!',:: II I 111!II,;I,II!,'I', 1111 !i II!!! !hl Ii !1'i"lli '"'~. . .11 h ~: II II 1111111 ft_ 'i '11&1. "'i~ 111,111 . h: I:' 'Ii" ( "1,' (:'1"'1'; h, ,. !ll!oilll' ...11 . ~, .111 t ~'<' I, . h ,.I I. i, .1., rI. ,'~ ~,~' - , ~ . . ".I(llI, .If........ . . '. ~...Ji! ' 'I I'"'' . , , '11!li"I".' ""I" I' . q "IIIII'II'rll"jllll Ii. !!I!l1 ! I j ',I!tl!II:,,!!III'!llljii i i! Ii, ~ i i ! Ii i I. li!II!:ill ii",! I!I ' 'I I" '"", I"; I 1"1 OIi' ,', .' I I' '1" '.1 -,. I! , " !I, , 111:1 "II .:'1,11'1' -1.1.' 'jl ' ,', " ~ ! 'II !,I . ',~ I ~I. i I I,' III'!' ,1,11;1 i! !!j' !!i I ill i !!l!! 'II !I !ill! IIII!II'I . ! ! J! ;I! ill!!,!!! i'!:! II: 11,: I;! Ij;llllji!iilhl II i ~!li!i iilililli! I illill i! i l'1i !Ii: lIi;11I1i!1Ii !illi/lii! . ~- ~'...... -...... co co ~ C\I .tt:> ci~ :z: llis: " l"\ "'''' ..... ~ct 'C( >-as< ~....,~.. <~...:oo o ..0 U.....:JCII -J '-"'lli' "''''<> 5g...!!! .."00.. Ill"''' ~CI)~~ ~~~~ a. >-~ lU ti~ ~~ j::~ ~ ~ ~ ; I ~ 11 . I~ II!! : t Ii j# jJ>l!i i I !~ :~I I~. ~a! :~I I~' :~I I ' : I I ' , I i ' l~I, i i : i \ , \ \ : \ \ I I ' : \ . I' \,,\ \ , \ . j \. , -" " '\ \ I ---~~~.-:. - \ \, - -...x', ), \ I -:;;->;;;~\ \ \\ ','\ \$ \ \ \ I\. ~~, I ) ) : \ \ v"" , I I ,I',. : I , \ ~ ~ . \ ,'\', : \"\ \ \ y: \ ' ~ " \ \~ I \' : ,{\ \ \ I: , \1 \ : I I' II . II \ , i 1\ \i! ! Ii I . '11 I : , I Iii ~ I . ~- ~ i! ~ % ~1 i I ~,' t~ II ~i I , ~ I g h"l;; h,; 5 II ~. I'l' 8; I~ I >. l:l.l II .. tl;! ~ 1111 ~$' iI ~,ill ~ I 'It f~~,! ~ gi~ i 'i I ~,~ ~~i~~, . lllg i It ~~M~h'~!l g i,ll · Mv ! ~~iill~li ; 'ii, I l~I' ~ ~fl F ~!i Il ill, I nli Iii. ~1I;ls f. lih ~ g. :~ii!1 ~I ~i"i ~! Ni., It .il~' . 'Ilho'~ I -lli'~' ! h>.",5~ ':';it~1 s~ i..lj. ;~ ~!iV.. i! "'lil!l' ~ !:I~!~!~ lillO..I. , i I . ~ i~ ! Ii I I Ihill~ ~ ~I!,l.. ~ ~~I!,~! ~lt ~ II " I; l!~ Ii il!~ ft-~ ..P II 'm'.~: it N "--:-;;:z !i ~ . ~ij:1 ~~'!i 'fTB' '. ,. I~i !ll !i . ~li I I ! ~,' L , ih~~rtJ'~ I ' ,hlh~hlxl X ILU ~d~~~l~d~,~;.! I a : :11:: :',1.1.1 1,1111 I'"' I ! ~ I '_ I I ,,' ~ ~~., Hh " "j 1T.i11 Hil ' . ,III, .,1 . i ::::1 -111 . ~. .. '=-~ ii, i I ! ,~! "i I j .\.f'<;..... !lir;: ~ i - &~ ~ I -., ~ : . ~,,{- ~i ..~~~ ! I ..' i 't <;..~~ ~, : """"~:, "'{,,- Il'p I!_o . I j~. . }.I:;'-- ~ [I';' ~ ~~ ::Ii: I.. ,.",-!.~. ill' '~{,.. ~ \1-- Ii. , ~ I i-. .i, I Ii; ~ . I !.- I!~ l-~ I!~ ,~, I (n_ , !111.l~ i~!! . I (.,- i~l~ a II -~ --+r II I ~_. I! ; · I! :: ". I I ~ ~ I"' I :i I !L- i ]! ,..1 i . ,.,jj "If I! II I! I Ii Ii 1\' !~ ',i l' /,{~!,." .. / ~I ": I . '\ I' ~ ';.ij;'~~" _'\ I ..~ ~~'~" j! \ , h... 1l'1 l. ' ~i . "'~l ,/ , i l,., "J i~ -g- !i <'''';" '~l ~ ,,/~/ ,~~., .1. / II: In ~..~ .. 10 \1 .. /' I ""''\ G ,0.,.-"--- ..-." .IIIt4I1,./f.Illl _1_ ,,'o'/""i"'.fl T~~!l~\'~i-"l:1 '\\ ,Ii '\(~. .. ',>:>:>= <> 0 00. . .gg g "':1010 wWw ,: .. It ....;.J.O ~::!o. o.l.L ~, ~ J j jj'j'll j ,f\ I::JJ. II ! I 'i V J 1.1,11,llil!IV 2) lif! fill Ii Ui III 'Ii In l!1 I .. ~ '51i u:!:: Ii .. Q. i E"'o E .. ...:1: ~ illl~1 :~ ,18 I I " I .~t tt II r II. I , I '1 I I I I I I I I , I I , ! I I /, I ... "/Yl-f' i i ,LI ," .t ~ filIi! ,!Ilf lilt HI 'Ii I { ! II ti .: ijh1ffl{lljlJ ItHi1ift H~hl!! Mid? ~ ~ tf'lt'!llllllilj rtt,! tll: ti!HI;i ,lll.11 r = I 1111 % ,[ I 'Ill j!' II ptl fl ' ~: dJllIJ!,nwjllibl fj'iI If!lltl,{ IlfflJj I ~ ~ hil fllmll. Htfl t,li lllhlc Illtl!lt ~ ~ Ull~lltm:h ~iilf tILl rf!rllh l.t Iii I II! ~ q I w . w " 'HI! E! ' I I ! ItlllPHj! H!l Ij I I'll! p! I I }f j ! 1 mi, uU. 'Iljllr lllm! I '111 'fl! I, U II il"l II' f,Hlt Jl'll . ,mi.. I!! I 11 ~ J ! II I} t f . I , . ! ~ 'I ,; I ~ , I I I Wi' I' I ~. I " I II 1,,11 I . ! i ! I d -I i I! Iii II ' dll ~ ~ \ lH I i Iii lllll 'Iii ~ 1l:11lllllh!Um il! II o.eq; 800:::)8 8 00808 0011ill " 0 j -t i . \CO..... ! (J, - I Ie- III ~j ., r C! 3 ... n~ i.... 1""< .' , '~Il!! Ii! li'l'i j' I~I "I ~ r:1 lUl:i :I o::lIl :1 ~I ]I _ 'I :1 '," , , ;11 , 'I 'I ,:1 ~ ~ ':1 'II III if ,~ :1 'I !I :, i 0; \1 h II ,I, ill :1: :~ . , I II II , , I j I ! ~.._:1 I J II Hl j j,.(n c3 . I' .. , " I . . ~ "51i .. i:II~/ g Iw ! I, I I ,.1 j' ~i u- . ",- '5 ill " "'I ',,' ~ 1- eg- o Ih .... l!illlil'!i,lilli,!II!f:d I . llill l~ G" ..... i IN ",0 E I-:r ~ I 1m Ie- III H ,..I I~ ;' t 'l' , . ~ ~ L li- i di < . . , . .. ilUi i ~ tr J" ~ J J:- .II ~ J t '1 , 1'1 l , " 'A IE. ". . ~ 1, " < f, > f .: :c> t- lIli: ~ ',., If "."111 l~lg' "old ~ tI. 'J: um t fH~. l'h :- 1:., ~ ~/ ~.",.,.../ ~ 1t."',:.'.I1." :. ..'~ '-T. '. -,~';of ~. .,.... ."'" ..'.' -~~""; ~q" .,',.:.."..,.'7. .,""..' ;~ \' ,:.'..... ;;:;\, .~-( -i~ ,', "". ~ . . e 1 ~ 1 1.!-t ~m ~Ui~Ufi , It/r,\ .li1!!I,!i.(, ':' ,...~;.;> . "'''''':. ' ;:!c- ;. I~J;' }/ ~U" I'" , j' ~:fl~ n'l, .~~..~ U) ii' 1: <t l) z; '<i 1:' I!II 1,1. I'" III ~I ~i ~l _I J' ~ . f ~ ~ <t ~ ~ ~ III Cl 1 I- ~ IL t h < 1 ~ , ; ~ ~~ i ~ ).." '~" , 1.,.3,.,;'.', . .,~ . -x~ , ''l 0' f' L' " ,l . , t " t! '" .~ r is III I- i~ ~ I- '. <t n 5 , 4' i=; M~ .1 U). a , 3 \ ~! I ..-- . ~1 ~... ,~! ',}"':', t~: ..., ! J' II / III j Il'! CJ) f,!, I I ,i I'V Ill" "4l'i'!!JI- 2) llil !Ii! !i In Iii ,!Il!! ,Ii I .. " 3m u g= cd' E g. i ..0 E t-:J: {! "1I~~ !lu ~ W. :~ ,.. . F f~~ ! ~ I J.... , ~!f J" .t." (t ~ I w' . ... on ... ~ ()I. " " i Ll. III I' ., I Ii .~ IH ,..I OJ I!ll !Ii: III ~I ~l ~I e!l ~ <t I l- > ~ , ~ " . 8 ; ~&.... !;t. iH -, ;<;1 Clt III 3 ep I f ~ 'l~' l ~ ~~ r..:- ~ a z.l .l ~ ;1 ~\~ \ fl !~1h l~ t~ 6fhh [uk ~~ .".. , , i 1 l- 0'1 ~~ W. ~ 2> I' , I' J' I I j ,n II ' I ; E B~ UJ. i 11~. 1 _~ El ~ ~ I; ~ - - ~ ~ lit;; " ~~. V 11111 !l,;ll!'!il'- Iii! J!ll! ~!i Hli Iii Ml III l!! I .. i1 '3'ii ,,; ~= '3 E~ g OlD E .....::1: ~ ;':1I~ HI!! ~ n'lI' .12 "~I. " 'ill , ... I Ii:: [' I, ,"'''' ...! b:'.5 _JJ ~! i ~i i I, li: III Ij! , " I ~; II I I r I C! I i I; ~ ..... 'I i . i..J ! .i I t I' .t = filIi! lllf 1 'Iii Hi 'Ii if l : l ti . ~ nh1!filif!h I ill ill! H!IHII! nllJlI P ~ ~ !'/t'IMllill flll! }!;t lill'l;; !!1,*1 f z :lIt Illj1lHlH Uhl litl l:!'~llj !';'lil J ;: 1 tl1!I'hIIUl!l'llEl fl'll l[l!r,!l'[ lh[!ij I :; lltillllH rill · ~ll t Ii, I!lill ' WillI · ; ~ nll~llm!!fi Jill: til.! irHllli mHli t II II II! o : t 3 z ~ 1 . . . " II! I J Ii j I' ~ ~ I . I I I , I 1/ } j 1 I ! ! t t f I' 1 !! ! WllHmjPll H 1 I ! Itlll!l} II ~ " ~ l 1 I , . .' . Ii , 'Ill ," I i.'i' Hi' 'I' i!ilr liUl I Wil " I . '11 ,,~ ! !! Ii I' Ili!I' h lh"...... ,. ,lilt 11'11 J 'illl- . l': ~1 ""_ ~.. u ! ' , i ! l 11 I . " ,! ! I. I!!.' I I gi il;i i I ! II '! , II I !; h!: II I al ~i ~~ If , i I I I ! . , I I ,. i ,I :! i 'I I : 11 i I ! i l! 11:11 iill! !i!illlllilin! "II, ~ ~l ~11I i I j'dl dll! ~IIHHllilil!!lmmh OtN,,, f~ ~ @$11@(%) <3UJIOO .. D I . - .:;.... ......~.. ~"" ~u i I I , il ![ )1 .;;,;;..lHJ I ~ i ' I, i': ! ; 0 Cf) .. ~ i i Ii ;, i r "5'ii l I _ ) - I ~ i ." &~ ,,; ~ If Il!r~ i II !~ i~ lit: i! ~~ :S! U- ., fill! rill! IlIi Hli !lIi III!!!! :11 I ..... 0 efll . ..0 E 1-:1: ~ { t . !' , ~ ~ ki / , S L \\. ldi. 11 i ~, ill d " ~ ~'" lit,- ~. , ~ 1 ~ "1 tll t>."f1 !I', i~h Rit~im. \11 al'Ui @jA ~ """"'1+ i. ~ tr J'.: ~ 1.~ I . I~' j~.1 t r: ") ~ ( \t '1 5,JIi Eit\ II np ~~ ~i mH ~-, /J. /-, I lID ,....--, -' ~""-r->:' ~ ~,,' . ., ~"1 i !hH ';JIl~ Ill! ~ ill: :~ ,.. p, I '" [ E <l U z; :Alii' '4.0:1 E'I <( ~ I I f (Y. . lIe. il ' II ll' , ... "'1 '1-- ~' l' ~, l .~ , t~ if-Ill ... <',f ~q . ~" , ~l. tl'~~." . ! sL':>. ~. ~t e e~. H~j ~ ~.t~' ~ , J' L F ci I nit. ,I j )~. 0 h ~ Ii ~i ~ w Q .... <l z a i=; M~ "'. i r e.( ~-j, '1"'~;:,Lfl --~ t._"-,i':.i1 ,-'," 'l-~-~~..r . , , J'!' .-;~- : -~: ,'" -' .),liLL ._.Ji ~ _ ,,," 'f: ' ~\,: " '" ,... i, ~-, '\ \fi 7J \J ::/'1; "~ >'12" r-i I: , ; '-. j ~, , 2 j: , ~' ~~ '" " ' ~ It:;-b I ~1'~~r I "'11 I .. '" J , ~~ ~. " it. I I'$,}; ~;'}IJ\J H' .. o. f,;! ~l It. . , i t " tl " -i!! " " ~ ., , -. " ;:i .. !tJ , ......., -- ~! ., I!ll IIII I,JJ III ~I ~i ~I -I I '" r W .... => ~ .... <l G i=\ ~, "'. " , ~ ; , i '.',' I ' ,n '~n ~ ii, I'; I '., !J.I. ~l! ~ J ! j ,I' ;' V Ill. j!l j!lj!Jli!IHUh- 2) J!i1 nil 111ftiladlllhhllli. I .. li 3ii U.:t: - G,) D. a elO . .,0 E ~::t: {!. "lIllJ 'ill ;l.a If j :: . F ~. Ii' ~l tk I .f' ','I' . ~t I h I. 0"- , .,(L F" ;\~i m I 11r' ri ~ t - -r I t j "'",' , '- , 'w"l ! l. " ''1. i g ~- N ",' I[ lIe- 131 (ill) , f.~ ! ." I I : I ~ ~ 1m N .N i..l ep I!II hi. .." III ~I ~i ~I -I ~ e' <I .' }- ~~ },c " Ii ~~~ \- 11" t => ~~ -. . 0 '~lt !i >' " \l f;l,i, 1 , ..;~ ~tt ~. '- ~:t: \ I u. -. ~ i' ~!! '" a' , , ep I ~. <Jti;J3 ] W \l .... z 1 W W "- ili ..J .... ;;' '" Il }- .'" .... Il' ::i ..... 0.. Z, '" W. <;(3 u3 ........ , t: ...- D ~ Q) - E .<:::'" ~ I u Q) z 00;: .<::: - :> 0 00 " " 'I ~ 'i' t.*:~ . 'j:;." ~~ \. ~. ~:~ " .<' . . il " . '" B ~ J: " e ~ '0 ::> ... .l!l t: Q) U (ij u '0 Q) :,: (ij t: o 'CJ Q) ~ a: " '" ~ :; li u " CD " E g ~ ~ . ,., u j ()) > . ; V,',' 0 ~ . u "",' E ()) '~ " - . .... ~.'v' ()) c: '" ~ ()) = ..., >- u m '.\ a. ~, 0 OJ :I: V., c: 0 ~ <U '5 ,~ 0 ()) ~ .s:: ~ '" - ::> " ~ OJ c: a. 0 ;;J '6> . Q, ()) a: '" Ul ~ 0 -! <U " U S 0 ~ 0 '" -. ()) ., - E u c: . E W -- ~ ~ . , , ~.. I,. ;,,~ '! c.j w - .c:Ul o ()) 00>: .c: - ;;J o 00 II -,>>t '''c '5 0 a: ~ F 1" ~ E ~ 0 '" " " 0 1" ~ ! c: .2 iii II w 0 . " " 0 1" " 0 'm 1" .. iii ~ 13 . 1ll 0: I " . c: '" .2 ~ .ll iii .ll '" " " " " 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ iii ]j 13 . . c: 0: .Q " '" ~ . x ~ w w ~ ~ '" , - . C <h '" 5 U ... ~ (ij :t '" 0 ~ " '0 " ~ '" > 0 'c 1" :2 ::> ... (ij .. ~ C ;; 0 . '0, . 0: . .2 Q) 'e a: ~ <1l g ... w S 0 0 .. '" '5 E 0 . ~ E ... w .c t o Z " . ,~' " " , '5 0 a: ~ F 1" ~ . E ~ 0 " w 'Iii <Il W 13 ii> -..~ ..I- rnw Cl c :Q ':; lD (ij - J . ~ ~ m ~ 5 F '0 0 C .. n. ~ ~ ;; c ~ . If. 0: ~ .Q ~ :; X 'C W ~ ~ c ~ c ;f 2 ~ ~ 0: .9 ~ 5 '0 0 '" c 0 ~ '0 ~ 0 ~ c ;; ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0: Q) ';; 5 - ~ ~ c: '" ;; l; Q) ~ ~ x 0 ~ 0: ~ w ~ 5 <ii I "tj 0 ~ x '5 ~ w Q) > '2 :2: ::> '" <ii 5 c: '0 0 0 '5> . c Q) ~ '," a: '2 n. g ~ Ol .. ;; "5 0 ~ 0: 0 <ii .2 Q) II ~ E ~ ~ E w /!!. . .. c If. jj ~ :; 'C ~ C ;f W .!:: '5 o en " '--( , c ~ E ~ o '5 o cr ~ F c ~ E ~ o w -fi ~ -.. ~ ..L rnw OJ c: :Q '5 III <ii - '0. lJ) o I 1;; CD :;: Ol a .L . .S 0 ~ N ::> lD . . 0 " ~ " Q) '~ - " c: '" Q) i' U OJ lii " r 0 ii '0 ~ " Q) > . ::2: '2 => lii c: .Q Ol " Q) "E a: <ll g ii .., u 01 8 .L c <': :2 N '5 OJ 0 ~ ~ U Q) .~ - ~ C '" Q) 0; U .. ~ al :J: .~ .. ~ 'U ~ Q) ::;E 'C => al c 0 '0 = Q) "e ex: g .!!1 .. :J U 0 <<i ',' OJ c: '5 'S co · .L 2: N . . 0 .. ~ U (]) .~ - .. / c: U) (]) ;; U 1ij .. III r 1ij 0 l!? ,. '5 .. . > ./ (]) '2 ~ ::> III c: 0 '01 .. lJ) '2 a: g III 1ij "5 0 0 ,; N " " " , 0 C .. .. N . " " " . 0 0: c ,2 ~ . ~ ;t . 0: . .2 ~ . " . '" .:; C . " "' w '" = U 'ji m '" 0 " '6 . Q) j " :;; c :> " " 0 m c " 0 c : c .Q . . ~ Ol 1ii . '" ,. cr: c 0: " g . 111 .g 0: '5 ~ . ,9 " '\ 0 " w ~ '" a w E . ~ E !!'. . . 15 o '" " ;= c ~ . o . ~ <D . >= a; w ~ S o (/) '> <D iij u; " ;: ~ -~ ~ '" u:; _0'" y I Ol C :g '5 lD Q) o :i: o m o '6 '" :;; ~ '" '" 111 .!: c.. . ~ <D . >= , . Of',r ~:i, ' .. ii> iiJ .c S o en c: o ~ > '" iiJ - ~ W ~ '" iiJ ~ c: o ~ > '" iiJ € o z ''';:::; -'"':! tll ., 6> -. ill -<>~ v I Ol c: :g ':; III Ql o ;j:; o OJ o '0 Ql ~ C\J Ql gj .c: [L . . ~ CD .~ - . c: '" Ql " () ~ :I: OJ o ~ =g ~ ~ ::> OJ c: o "0, co Q) "E a: g tll " '3 " o .. Ql a E ~ ~ ~ . N 5 " " .~ ~ ;; ~ ;;: .12 ~ ;ll .$ ~ m o F . 5 " " E .~ "- w 1ii ;;: 5 '~ o ;ll " o 0: o F E o E w " 1!! 'E en c: c: 00 ~;:; > '" m~ Ww Woo ~~ g {+ ~ ~ o c :;; <. a; iIi ~ Q) - C Q) U lJ) lJ) Q) C - u:: 'OJ .= Ol c: '6 ii: '0 c: '" '" a 1:: o ll. '" o 1il c: ,g tl '" (J) " o 0: o F E o ~ " o m m o F 5 " " E ;f ~ ;; . ;;: .g . ;ll '" 5 " " E '~ a. o 1ii ;;: .g o ;ll c: o ~ > '" iiJ € o z c: o ~ iii iiJ 10 '" w OJ -o~ I > -. Q) w _c>~ ~ Q) - c Q) U ~ Q) (J C ell U ~ ~ 0 Q) 1: - 0 c Ul Q) E U ~ OJ r (J ~ =a 1 Q) c ::;: => OJ c o '0 III Q) E a:: g ell " "5 " (J ,; Q) g E ~ {E ~ . . . )) ATTACHMENT NO.2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ (DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc 37 ....."""- , "~..i!'-~;~;~I~~,,~;;~~~ii~,~~gi~~~A-~ ~~:~~~~it~::.,:;~.gc~;;)[~~:t;~:~~jjii~-~~~~ . PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04- 0463, PA04-0571 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE THAT: . Section 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: A. This Resolution constitutes the Statement of Findings of Fact Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15091 for the Temecula Hospital Project described herein. . B. The Temecula Regional Hospital Project and related actions ("Project"), initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula consists of the development of a 35.31-acre planned Regional Medical Center in the City of Temecula. The Project site is located adjacent to and north of State Highway 79 South in the City of Temecula, California, in southwest Riverside County, south of the City of Los Angeles and north of the City of San Diego; from the 1-15, access to the Project site is provided by Highway 79 South; the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462) to remove the project area from the Future Specific Plan "Z" Overlay District from the Land Use Element of the General Plan which will permit new construction to exceed two- stories in height; a Zone Change (PA05-0302) from PO (Professional Office) and PDO- 8 (De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District - 8) to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay District-9) and to create height standards which would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit (PA04-0463) for the Hospital facility and private helipad; a Development Plan (PA04-0463) to permit the construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-0571) to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35.31 acres, also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- . 007 through 959-080-010. C. UHS of Delaware Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA 05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). D. 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; and, E. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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. F. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general . public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. G. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Project. H. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Project; I. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report ("Draft FEIR") was issued on August 3, 2005, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082. J. Written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft FEIR. K. Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project implementation pursuant to CEQA, . . . . L, On September 26, 2005 the State Office of Planning and Research approved a 30 day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital EIR (SCH#2005030017) for this Project determining that such a review period is consistent with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code. M. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft FEIR dated September 26, 2005, the City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on September 26, 2005. N. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft FEIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at City offices. O. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received seven (7) written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final EIR). P. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentors on and before November 22, 2005, including those received after the end of the public review period. Responses to public agency commentators were provided on or before November 12, 2005. Q. On April 6, 2005, April 20, 2005 and November 16, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on the Project and the Draft FEIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft FEIR. R. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects 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, 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. . T. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacfs, 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. U. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City Council finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 3 of the proposed City Council Resolution. V. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein are described in Section 4 of the proposed City Council resolution. W. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 5 of the proposed City Council resolution. . X. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 6 of the proposed City Council resolution. Y. 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 Section 7 of the proposed City Council resolution.. 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 assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and, Z. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been 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 meetings and hearings. In making the recommendation to the the City Council as set forth in this resolution, findings contained herein and in the proposed City Council Resolution reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and related actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the Draft FEIR under CEQA require additional public review . . . . because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. Section 2. Recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, California, hereby recornmends that the City Council for the City of Temecula adopt a Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080- 010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)" certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Draft City Council Resolution for certification of the above, substantially in the form contained in Exhibits A, attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTION by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 2005. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary . . . . . EXHIBIT A CC RESOLUTION 05-_ (DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT) . ~i~~:::~'~~i~~;.t~;f~~Li~",;~~';';;: ;-C~~aiI*'~ ::'<l;::,~~~~;.~~~:t~~~~~~-: ~~:1<EC~~~'i;Zd,,;;~~~;'i~~~~:G;i:-::f2i~~:~~io$.~~~~~~ai~ . . . RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04- 0463, P A04-0571 ) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE THAT: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines that: A. This Resolution constitutes the Statement of Findings of Fact Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15091 for the Temecula Hospital Project described herein. B. The Temecula Regional Hospital Project and related actions ("Project"), initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula consists of the development of a 35.31-acre planned Regional Medical Center in the City of Temecula. The Project site is located adjacent to and north of State Highway 79 South in the City of Temecula, California, in southwest Riverside County, south of the City of Los Angeles and north of the City of San Diego; from the 1-15, access to the Project site is provided by Highway 79 South; the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (PA04- 0462) to remove the Project area from the Future Specific Plan "Z" Overlay District from the Land Use Element of the General Plan which will permit new construction to exceed two-stories in height; a Zone Change (PA05-0302) from PO (Professional Office) and PDO-8 (De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District - 8) to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay District-9) and to create height standards which would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit (PA04-0463) for the hospital facility and private helipad; a Development Plan (PA04-0463) to permit the construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-0571) to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35.31 acres, also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010. C. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed 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 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 Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). D. 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; and, E. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which tirne the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. F. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. G. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused Environmentallrnpact Report for the Project. . H. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQAn), the City is the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Project; I. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report ("Draft FEIRn) was issued on August 3, 2005, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. J. Written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft FEIR. K. Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project implementation pursuant to CEQA. L. On September 26, 2005 the State Office of Planning and Research approved a 30 day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital EIR (SCH#2005030017) for this Project determining that such a review period is consistent with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research . for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code. . . . M. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft FEIR dated September 26, 2005, the City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on September 26, 2005. N. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft FEIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at City offices. O. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received seven (7) written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact ReporVResponse to Comments document (Final EIR). P. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentators on and before November 22, 2005, including those received after the end of the public review period. Responses to public agency commentators were provided on or before November 12, 2005. Q. On April 6, 2005, April 20, 2005 and November 16, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on the Project and the Draft FEIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft FEIR. R. On November 22, 2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on the Project and the Draft FEIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft FEIR. S. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or carrying out a Project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects 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, (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. . T. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the 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. U. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City Council finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 3 hereof. V. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein are described in Section 4 hereof. W. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City Council finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in . Section 5 hereof. X. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 6. Y. 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 Section 6 hereof. Z. 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 assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and, AA. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and related actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the Final EIR require additional public review because no new significant environmental . . . . impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. Section 2. Findings Concerning Impacts Identified in the Initial Study as Having Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment. The City Council hereby finds and determines that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR. written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts associated with the Temecula Regional Hospital will have a less than significant impact through the Initial Study: A. AQricultural Resources The Project site is not currently in agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15 to 20 years), the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The Project site was historically used for agricultural uses as noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. During the mid-1800s, the Project site was cultivated as an agricultural field. However, the Project site has not been utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable agricultural resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance, as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the Project will not involve changes in the existing environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, p. 5) The proposed Project could. because of its regional significance, cause other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some remaining agricultural uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and surrounding areas that could be converted to uses other than agricultural; however, the conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the proposed Project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of San Diego County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the proposed Project. Therefore, the growth of the surrounding area is a result of external economic forces rather than the proposed Project. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, p. 5) B. Bioloqical Resources A habitat assessment study was prepared for the Project site (Habitat Assessment, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., September 14. 2004). The study identified a man-made flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the Project site, which contains riparian vegetation such as willows and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes has also been identified within the manmade channel. The habitat within the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The Project applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to construct a vehicular access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may require Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and potentially clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The presence of the flood channel may also require the approval of Riverside County Flood Control. The study (AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. September 2004) concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed . alteration, placement of fill into the channel, and the encroachment into jurisdictional areas. However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge. In addition, if activity within the channel (or for preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to occur between April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols shall be provided to determine the presence/absence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusil/us) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds is found, the construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the Project with mitigation measures. The Project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery sites. The Project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan, including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Project site has been grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord. 8.16). There are some grasses on the Project site; however, they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the Project site. The proposed Project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP. The Project site . is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic plants. as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the Burrowing Owl. A Burrowing Owl survey was conducted by AMEC and the results reported in a report dated August 9, 2005. The survey did not identify the presence of Burrowing Owls on the subject property. The following Mitigation Measures will be required in the event that an extension of Dartolo Road across the flood control channel occurs: Due of the type of habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would need to be conducted to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If either of these endangered birds is found, bridge construction schedules and activities would have to be modified to avoid impacts to the birds' reproductive cycle.' Both the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered species and protected under the MSHCP. (DEIR, p. 5-14) 1 AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. T emecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September '4, 2004. . . . . C. Cultural Resource A Phase I survey (Historical/Archaeological Resource Survey Report, Temecula Hospital Project. CRM Tech, September 17. 2004) has been prepared for the proposed Project. The survey did not identify any historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 on the Project site. No impact on historical resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. The Phase I survey did not identify the Project site as a potential site for historical resources, including human remains. Historically, the site has been used for agricultural production, which involved substantial and repeated soil disturbance. The archaeology survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact that the surrounding area is known to contain historical and archaeological resources. Given the known sensitive resources discovered within close proximity of the Project site, conditions of approval are required. The Project site is also a potential site for paleontological resources, and conditions of approval are required. The City will apply standard conditions of approval to the Project to address monitoring during grading operations. The following Conditions of Approval have been required of the proposed Project and shall be imposed as enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the Project: 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources, and human remains discovered on-site. 2. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the Project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent authorized by law. 3. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities at the applicant's sole cost. 4. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided and preserved consistent with this condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in Condition A above. 5. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the Historical/Archaeological Resource Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004 and September 16, 2004, respectively. except as modified by Project Conditions of Approval. 6. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological, and Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) shall each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.. 7. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates and vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they can be identified and permanently preserved. 8. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires alternative treatment. 9. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. 10. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and the city of Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any Pleistocene-age or older sediments/resources are discovered, a program shall be prepared with recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the resources unearthed. (Initial Study, pgs. 14 and 15) D. Geoloqv/Soils A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the proposed Project "Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA." PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004). The Project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The proposed Project will not be subject to fault rupture since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the Project site. The Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The Project has the potential to be exposed to severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The site, in its current condition, includes subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of structural loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent a negligible corrosive environment with respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive environment with respect to buried metals. The Project site has a moderate risk for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor slabs should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement due to soil liquefaction and seismically induced consolidation of soil above the groundwater. The following Conditions of Approval have been required as a part of the proposed Project to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant, and will be established as enforceable conditions on the entitlements: . . . 1 . The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Geotechnical Exploration Report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 and as stated below without deviation. a. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical. b. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly compacted fill. The depth of over-excavation should extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on-grade and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed. The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a heavy vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D157) until design finish grades are reached. This earthwork should extend at least four feet beyond building limits, wherever practical. c. . The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill materials, including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials, have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an expansion index of less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill. During the course of grading operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches) may be generated. These materials should not be placed within the compacted fill. d. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacted-engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior to sloping. e. . Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical engineer with consideration for the lateral earth . . pressure used in the wall design. f. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be removed/scarified; moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on Test Method D1557. The upper 12-inch densification should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base material and not during the initial grading operation. g. As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial deposits underlie the site. As such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can generally be achieved with conventional earthmoving equipment. h. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects (Appendix E), and City of Temecula standards. The Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The Project site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the . implementation of erosion control and best management practices (BMP's). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan does not identify any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the Project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), and, thus, will not create substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies the soils on the Project site as "very low expansion potential," as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. The Project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004. The Project will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available; approvals from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District for solid wastes and waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The Project will be required to connect to the public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project as the current sewer system and waste treatment facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility. (Initial Study, pgs. 16, 17, and 18) E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Project could potentially . create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine . . . transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project consists of medical uses and will include the storage, use, and transportation of hazardous materials. The Project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in hazardous emissions materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit to the City an approved hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the Project. The Project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and therefore would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, pgs. 19 and 20) The Project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). There are no other airports located near the Project. The Project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project does include a private helipad that will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of patients to other facilities. As a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and safe. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. The Project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project, which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local treatment for the injured, especially in the event of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the Project. The Project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this Project. The following standard Conditions of Approval have been required of the Project and will be established as an enforceable condition on the entitlements: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) that verifies that the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal regulations. (Initial Study, pgs. 19 and 20) F. Mineral Resources The Project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are considered of value to the region and/or the state. . The Project will not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource because the Project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the Project. (Initial Study, p.25) G. Population and HousinQ The Project is a regional facility that will add additional medical services to the region. As a result, the Project could potentially cause additional growth in the surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth (residential and commercial) since the mid-1980s without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding community is nearly built out with residential dwellings. The Project, therefore, is not anticipated to induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has . already occurred over the last 10 to 20 years. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the Project. The Project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The Project includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center, and a fitness rehabilitation center; residential uses are not proposed. The Project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or remove/replace existing housing. The Project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. (Initial Study, p. 30) . H. Public Services The Project will have a less than significant impact upon, or not result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation, or other public facilities. The Project will provide additional public services available to the community and general public. The Project will also provide better emergency medical response and allow for better transport of medical emergencies. The Project will contribute fair-share contributions through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provide public facilities and infrastructure. The Project will not have an impact upon nor result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The Project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The Project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this Project. A condition of approval has been placed on this Project that will require the applicant to obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result of the Project. The Project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual analysis concerning sewer flows from the hospital, and the total flow is estimated to be . approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge volume, the . . . hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity, assuming that all hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service, the applicant is responsible for payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee. Impact is less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 31) I. Recreation The Project is a hospital and medical office Project in a professional office zone. The Project will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this Project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. The Project does not include an open space or recreational aspect. Furthermore, the Project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project. (Initial Study, p. 32) J. Utilities and Service Systems The Project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The Project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. The Project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. The applicant is required to consult with the sewer purveyor, EMWD, to determine what, if any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit a letter from EMWD indicating that current facilities are in place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to provide service to the proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project because the wastewater and treatment systems are already designed to handle this quantity of wastewater. The Project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The Project may require various state and federal permits. The Project will include the construciion of underground storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the Project site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities will be required as a result of this Project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. The Project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. According to RCWD's Water Facilities Master Plan and 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, RCWD has an existing and planned combined well, imported, and recycled water production capacity of approximately 150,000 acre-feet. The ultimate annual water demand of the RCWD is estimated to be 129,545 acre-feet, while the existing demand for 2004 was approximately 85,000 acre-feet. Based on the projected water demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future demands projected for the Project service area, this Project demand is less than the Water Facilities Master Plan projected demands based on land use for the Project location. The Master Plan projected demands for the Project site are based on use of the site as . 30 acres of Business Park/Industrial (1500 gallons per day) and 6 acres of Estate Residential (0.75 acre-feet per acre), resulting in a total of 55 acre-feet for the Project area. Therefore, the 42 acre-feet demand estimated for the Project has been provided for and can be met with existing supply capacities. To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the Rancho California Water District intends to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the following: 1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned RCWD-owned wells. 2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake. 3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed to be available. 4. Conservation measures. Due to RCWD's access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local . groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability to supply customers. Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet demands by augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or critically dry, years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists to support the Temecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water Code Section 10910. (DEIR, p. 4-35 and 4-35) The Project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. (Initial Study, pgs. 35 and 36) Section 3. Findings Concerning Impacts Found in The Draft FEIR to Have Less Than Significant Impacts on the Environment. The City Council hereby finds and determines that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony . . from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts associated with the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will have a less than significant impact through the EIR and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures: A. Aesthetics - Scenic HiQhways and Visual Character or Qualitv The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway, as designated by the California Department of Transportation.2 According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the Project site does not include any scenic resources, is not known for its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources. Development of the Project will result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, pA-4) The proposed Project will be visible from various residential lots north of the Project site, as illustrated in the photograph in Figure 4-2b in the EIR. However, the views are considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or policy. While the hospital/medical complex will be apparently taller than surrounding development, it will appear as infill development. As illustrated in Figure 4-2a in the EIR, while the Project site can seen from residential areas to the north, particularly in comparison from the existing view, views of Palomar Mountain will not be blocked by the Project. The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent residences to the north is greater than the elevation of the pad areas of the Project site. Therefore, the building height will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the residences to the north. . To soften views and blend the development with surrounding urbanization, the preliminary landscape plan proposes numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine, Coast Live Oaks, and Silk Trees along the perimeter of the site between the residences and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the buildings and mask the development of the site. Incorporation of these Project features will help to reduce viewshed impacts. The proposed height of the hospital towers will continue to obstruct views from nearby locations. However, because the views are considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or policy, impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-5) B. Air Quality - Construction Odors and Consistencv with Adopted Plans and Policies The Project has the potential to create objectionable odors during construction. Some odors may be associated with the operation of diesel engines during site preparation. However, these odors are typical of urbanized environments and would be subject to construction and air quality regulations, including proper maintenance of machinery to minimize engine emissions. These emissions are also of short duration and are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere. Therefore, the Project will not create significant objectionable odor impacts during construction. (DEIR,4-24) . 2 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. hllp:/Iwww.dotca.qov/hq/LandArch/scenic hiqhwavsl Dale accessed: August 11, 2005. With respect to determining Project consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it must be recognized that air . quality planning in the South Coast Air Basin focuses on the attainment of the ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. The SCAQMD CEQA emissions thresholds for construction and operational phase emissions are designed to identify those Projects that would result in significant levels of pollutants, as well as promote the attainment of the California ambient air quality standards and national ambient air quality standards. General Plans are used to assist in development of the AQMP, which provides the framework for attainment of the ambient air quality standards and national ambient air quality standards. The Temecula Hospital Project proposes development on the Project site at an intensity greater than the two-story building height limit established in the General Plan Land Use Element for this site. However, the proposed hospital and medical uses involve a total of 566,160 square feet of building area, whereas a commercial office development constructed pursuant to current land use regulations could yield up to 769,059 square feet based on an assumed Floor-Area Ratio of 0.5. The proposed uses would generate up to 65% fewer vehicle trips than the commercial/office uses on the site assumed in the General Plan (see discussion of Alternative 2 in Section 5.0 of the EIR). Finally, Policy 1.8 in the Land Use Element states: "Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as well as a community college, major college or university." Therefore, the Project is consistent with goals and policies within the General Plan. As the Project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Open Space/Conservation . Elements, it is assumed to be consistent with the AQMP, and the development's assumptions are included in the modeling for the AQMP. (DEIR, p. 4-25) C. HvdroloQV and Water Qualitv Storm Water Drainage and Water Quality Compliance with the existing regulations, which require Riverside County Flood Control District review to ensure adequate flood control capacity, on-site drainage provision, drainage fees payment, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan preparation, will ensure a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and water quality. (DEIR, pA-33) California Water Code Sections 10910-10915 In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development Projects pursuant to the General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are required to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development Project will be permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Water Code Section 10910 applies to the Project because the proposed hospital and medical office building complex meets the criteria established in California Water Code Section 10912 (a)(1) in square feet and potential employment. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) owns, operates, and maintains the public . water system within which the proposed Project will be located. RCWD will be the . . . water purveyor to the Project. RCWD has prepared a water supply assessment for the proposed Project; this assessment states that the projected water demand for the Temecula Regional Hospital is approximately 42 acre-feet per year. This demand has been anticipated and included in the adopted Urban Water Management Plan and Water Facilities Master Plan for RCWD. Furthermore, based on the projected water demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future demands projected for the Project service area, this Project demand is less than the Water Facilities Master Plan projected demands based on land use for the Project location. Therefore, the 42 acre- feet demand estimated for the Project has been provided for and can be met with existing supply capacities. To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the District intends to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the following alternatives: 1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned RCWD-owned wells. 2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake. 3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed to be available. 4. Conservation measures. Due to RCWD's access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability to supply customers. Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet demands by augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or critically dry, years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists to support the Temecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water Code Section 10910. Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-33, 4-34, and 4-35) D. Land Use and PlanninQ The Professional Office General Plan land use designation will continue to apply to the Project site. The uses proposed are all permitted within this designation. Thus, no conflict with underlying General Plan land use policy will apply. The elimination of the Z2 overlay would eliminate building height restrictions. As a default, the standards of the applicable zone would apply. The PO zoning district has a building height limit of 75 feet. However, the applicant has submitted a PDO application with the zone change application to allow a maximum height of 115 feet for the tower structures. In approving the Project, the City Council . has determined that no conflict between General Plan policy and zoning regulations result, and impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-39) The Project will be a phased development that will allow for efficient implementation of public facilities and services within the Project area. Furthermore, potential jobs will be created through the development and programming of this regional hospital, and the housing for the hospital workers will be accommodated through new housing developments anticipated in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project will be consistent with goals and polices of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element. Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4c40) All uses currently permitted in the existing PO zoning district will still be permitted in new PDO-9 zone. Thus, no conflict or impact will result. The primary changes that will occur as a result of the new proposed PDO and the Development Plan will be a chahge to the building height limit (to allow up to 115 feet) and the establishment of development standards applicable strictly to this site. The PDO document submitted with the application indicates an allowable maximum building height limit of 115 feet. In approving the PDO-9 zone, the City Council has determined that the PDO-9 zone is appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. Therefore, impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-40) The hospital, medical office, and related uses are consistent with established and planned development uses and patterns along Highway 79 South, south of De Portola . Road. With regard to the residential uses, the site is separated from these uses by, respectively, a six-lane roadway to the south and an approximate 88-foot road right-of- way to the north. Also, the site plan builds in buffers in the form of parking lots and landscaping to ensure compatibility between the uses on the site and residential uses. The uses proposed are considered consistent and compatible with surrounding uses; impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-41) With regard to intensity of use, the Project will result in a more intense use of the site than is currently allowed under land use regulations due to the proposed increased height standard. The Project will require approval of a planned development permit to provide for the development of the site with the uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components of the proposed development, and to provide development standards for the Project. The hospital bed-towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site. The nearest tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and approximately 630 feet from De Portola Road. Extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided. These Project features will minimize perceived visual effects and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Therefore, land use compatibility impacts with regard to development standards are not considered significant. (DEIR, p. 4-41) . . . . E. Noise (Construction, Ground-Borne Vibration. Traffic-related Noise. Sirens. Loadinq Activities. Parkinq Lot Activities. Trash Pickup. LandscapinQ/Maintenance, and Future Exterior/Interior Noise Environment Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section 8.32.020 of the Municipal Code. (DEIR, p. 4-64) The proposed Project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels. However, ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the demolition, site clearing and grading phase of the construction when activity occurs very near the property lines. This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the short duration of the activity. (DEIR, p. 4-64) Although siren noise may cause some annoyance at nearby noise-sensitive receptors, noise from emergency vehicles is considered to have a less than significant impact because it will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and because sirens are necessary for safety during an emergency. (DEIR, p. 4-58) Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-64) Activity at the loading docks have the potential to create excessive noise. Assuming that the worst-case 10-minute average noise level at the proposed loading docks will be the same, and allowing for the noise reduction provided by the distance from the loading docks to the nearest occupied home (approximately 845 feet), the estimated 10-minute average noise level at the home due to loading dock activities is approximately 50 dB(A). With four deliveries over a 24-hour period, this equates to a CNEL of 42 dB. This level is below the daytime stationary noise source standards of 65 dB. Measurements indicate that the existing CNEL at the home is about 57 dB, so loading dock activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. The impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-61) At the office property to the east (a distance of about 285 feet) from the loading docks, the CNEL is expected to be about 51 dB. This is below the City's. standard of 70 dB, and will not increase the existing CNEL by 3 dB or more; therefore, the impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-61) Trash pickup is frequently a cause of complaints from residents living adjacent to commercial uses. Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source during raising, lowering, and compacting operations. However, this noise is temporary and will not occur on a constant basis. A typical trash pickup lasts only three minutes on average and is a common noise source that exists throughout the community. Therefore, this Project impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-63) The exterior noise standard of 70 dB CNEL for a hospital site is exceeded at all exterior locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane of Highway 79 South. . However, no exterior useable/habitable spaces are located within this envelope. Impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-64) The interior noise standard will not be exceeded within any medical office building nor hospital facility given the noise estimates and the noise reduction characteristics of the buildings themselves. The noise levels inside the buildings will comply with the interior CNEL standard of 50 dB. At locations further from the street, the estimated CNEL will be lower than 50 dB. Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-64) Section 4. Findings Concerning Potentially Significant Impacts Which Can be Mitigated to Levels of Insignificance. The City Council hereby finds and determines that mitigation measures outlined in the Draft FEIR have been incorporated into the Temecula Regional Hospital Project that avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Project Draft Focused EIR to a less than significant level. The potentially significant Project impacts and the mitigation measures which have been adopted to mitigate them to a less than significant level are as follows: A. Aesthetics - Liqht and Glare 1. Potential Significant Impact The Project will introduce new sources of light and glare typically associated with a hospital and medical office. A minimum of one-foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading, and circulation areas, and a minimum of two-foot candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. The City is requiring the Project applicant to locate all ground-mounted lighting as far away as possible from the residences. All free-standing lighting in the parking lot will be consistent with the setbacks set forth in the Development Code and Design Guidelines. . The hospital towers have the potential to emit glare from the upper floors. (DEIR, p. 4-14) 2. . Findings 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 DEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential aesthetic impacts to a less than . significant level: . . . A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed light levels for the entire Project site onto adjacent Project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate potential light impacts. (DEIR, p. 4-15) A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non- reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare emitted from the upper floors. (DEIR, p. 4-15) A-3. The applicanVdeveloper shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the Project site. Such landscaping treatment may include decorative walls. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels. (DEIR, p. 4-15) B. Noise - Operational Impacts (Mechanical Yard, Emerqencv Generators. Mechanical Equipment Room, Rooftop Equipment) 1. Potential Significant Impact Mechanical Yard Duty Equipment The mechanical yard duty equipment's noise level for all the equipment is 74 dB(A) at 50 feet. At the worst-case noise-sensitive location, the estimated noise level is 51 dB(A) and, over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be about 58 dB. This level complies with the City's standard of 65 dB; however, the CNEL at the residence will increase by approximately 4 dB. In addition, the CNEL generated by the duty equipment is estimated to be 71 dB at the nearest office location. This exceeds the City's standard of 70 dB. Therefore, the impact is significant, and mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4-62) Mechanical Yard Emergency Generators The emergency generators' estimated noise level for each of the two generators is 86 dB(A) at 52 feet. This level does not include additional noise from the engine exhaust stack, which may increase the noise level by several decibels depending on the quality of the muffler. At the worst- case noise-sensitive location, the estimated noise level is 63 dB(A), without the contribution of the engine exhaust. On a maintenance test day, this equates to a CNEL of at least 41 dB, which complies with the City's standard. However, if the generators run continuously over a 24- . hour period, the CNEL will be at least 70 dB. This exceeds the City's 65 dB standard. In addition, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB at the nearest office property if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, which exceeds the City's standard. Therefore, the generator impact is potentially significant at both the worst-case noise-sensitive location and the office location as well. (DEIR, pgs. 4-62 and 4-63) The Mechanical Equipment Room The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the Phase IB hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard. An analysis of the central plant room noise levels is not currently possible, as the construction of the room/building is not known and the details for all the equipment are not available. However, based on the fact that the central plant will contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers, and boilers it is anticipated that it could produce significant impacts at nearby noise-sensitive receivers unless mitigation is incorporated into the design. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4-63) Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are potential noise . sources. However, structural designs are easily implemented in new construction, and it is anticipated that such measures will be included during the final design of the Project to minimize rooftop mechanical equipment noise. (DEIR, p. 4-63) 2. Findings 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 DEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential noise impacts to a less than significant level: N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully operational upon completion of Project construction, the applicanVpermittee shall conduct continuous, 24-hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that may be in place at the time, the applicanVpermittee shall implement measures to achieve the thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such . . measures may include, but not be limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance. (DEIR, p. 4-65) N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings on the site to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the General Plan. (DEIR, p. 4-65) C. Transportation - Proiect Impacts 1. Potential Significant Impacts The Project will result in the following significant traffic impacts requiring mitigation: Phase 1: Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to Project-related or cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak . hours . Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours . . Phase 1: Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to Project-related or cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road Project at Build-out: Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to Project- related or cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak hours . . Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour . Margarita Road/Highway 79 South - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour . Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours . Project at Build-out: Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to Project-related or cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road . . Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road . Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 2. Findings 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 DEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential transportation - Project impacts to a less than significant level: The Project applicant/permittee will be required to contribute fair-share payments for the following improvements: T-1. Signalize the main Project site access from Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way with the following configuration: Westbound: 1 right-turn lane 3 through lanes 1 left-turn lane . Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes 2 through lanes 1 shared through/right lane Northbound: 1 left-turn lane 1 shared through/right lane Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes 1 shared throughlright lane (20 feet wide) (DEIR, pA-93) T-4. Improvements on the Project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola Road developed to the specifications of the Public Works Director. (DEIR,4-94) Section 5. Findings Concerning Impacts Which Cannot be Fully Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:- . . A. Air Qualitv - Short-term, LonQ-term. and Cumulative 1. Potential Significant Impact Short- Term Construction activity will produce daily emissions above the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). The NOx emissions are primarily attributable to exhaust from construction vehicles, and the ROG emissions are primarily from the application of architectural coatings. The emissions of these pollutants are considered to produce a significant adverse short-term regional air quality impact because the levels of these emissions are projected to exceed SCAQMD air pollutant significance thresholds. (DEIR, p. 4-23) . Long- Term and Cumulative Air pollutant emissions associated with Project operations will be generated due to the consumption of electricity and natural gas (so-called stationary sources) and by the operation of on-road vehicles (mobile sources). Because it is not possible to isolate geographically where production of electric power occurs, these emissions are considered to be regional in nature. Emissions of criteria pollutants associated with the production of energy were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. (DEIR, p. 4-24) Regional emissions from the operation of the Temecula Regional Hospital are estimated to produce air pollutant emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO) and ROG. As such, regional emissions associated with the operational phase of the Project will result in a significant adverse air quality impact related to ROG and CO. (DEIR, p. 4-25) 2. Findings Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce air quality impacts to the extent feasible. AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for a final location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the Project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. (DEIR, p. 4-26) . AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and van pooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the . on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices. (DEIR, p. 4-26) AQ-3. The applicanVpermittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards appropriate for medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of California regulations. (DEIR, p. 4- 26) AQ-4. The applicanVpermittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the Project site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to prevent dust and erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be installed at the applicanVpermittee's expense. (DEIR, p. 4-26) AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the applicanVpermittee shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth-moving and large . equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably possible. (DEIR, p. 4-27) AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works Director reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the Project construction. (DEIR, p. 4-27) AQ-7. The applicanVpermittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the following examples listed below: . . . Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site inactive for over four days. . Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. . Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion. . Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon. . Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour. . Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary coverings. . Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. . Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. Compliance with The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be subject to periodic site monitoring by the City. (DEIR, p. 4-27) . AQ-8. During the course of the Project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction- related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. (DEIR, p. 4-27) AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel. (DEIR, p. 4-27) AQ-10. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste- related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against Project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. (DEIR, p. 4-28) . AQ-11. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the Project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. (DEIR, p. 4-28) AQ-12. During the course of the Project grading and construction, . the applicant/permittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or construction. (DEIR, p. 4-28) AQ-13. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. (DEIR, p. 4-28) AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the Project to the maximum extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coatings. The following websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content ~~: . http://http://www.aomd.oov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant AI M.pd! http://www.delta-institute.orq/publications/paints.pdf (DEIR, p. 4.28) AQ-15. The Project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. (DEIR, p. 4- 28) AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. (DEIR, p. 4-28) AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to promote alternative transportation. (DEIR, p. 4-28) 3. Supporting Explanation . The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project will result in significant air quality impacts during the Project's construction and operational . phases. With mitigation, ROG emissions will be less than significant. However, NOx emissions from construction vehicle exhaust will continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold and result in a significant, unavoidable short-term air quality impact. (DEIR, p. 4-29) Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation, estimated emissions of CO and ROG will exceed the operational phase thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Even with measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Long-term air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4-29) B. Noise - Associated with the Maximum Potential Number of EmerQency Helicopter FliQhts 1. Potential Significant Impacts . The Project includes a helipad to be used for the emergency evacuation of any patient who cannot be treated at the hospital. The helipad permit to be issued by the California Department of Transportation will have a limit of a maximum six flights per month. The applicant anticipates no more than one flight per month. However, assuming one flight on a "worst- case" day, and that the flight hovers for one minute prior to landing or climbing, the sound exposure level (SEL) would be 94 to 100 dB(A). The estimated annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4 (on a scale from 0 to 10). If this condition occurred up to six times per month, the level of short-term, periodic impact could be considered significant by those persons living closest to the hospital. (DEIR, p. 4-61) 2. Findings Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts to the extent feasible: N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for critical patient transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit for an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits. (DEIR, p. 4-65) . N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of a preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast. (DEIR, p. 4-65) 3. Supporting Explanation . Even with mitigation measures to reduce helicopter flight noise impacts, these impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance because of the uncertainty of the exact number of flights per month due to the unknown number of emergencies that will occur within any given month. Helicopter flight noise impacts will be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p.4-66) C. Traffic & Circulation - Cumulative Impacts 1. Potential Significant Impacts New residential, commercial, industrial, and other development occurring throughout the Project area, combined with Project trips, will increase the number of vehicle trips to, through, and from the surrounding area. Vehicle trips from the Project and related Projects are anticipated to create or add to traffic congestion on Highway 79 South, especially near the 1-15 ramps, and at selected roadway segments and intersections. The 21 cumulative Projects generate a total of 160,500 average daily trips with 5,560 trips in the AM peak hour and 6,130 trips in the PM peak hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be confined to the area (short trips), while others would travel outside the . Project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the regional transportation system. Adverse impacts to the circulation network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction measures and programs are not implemented. In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development Project will be assessed its fair share for identified roadway improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the City to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation programs and improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections. Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment of fair share fees and citywide and Project-level roadway improvements. The proposed Project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the following roadway links will continue to operate over capacity: . Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road . Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road . Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South . . Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at Project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near 1-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6-4) . . 2. Findings . Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce traffic impacts to the extent feasible. Also, other roadway system enhancements will be pursued over the long term to implement the recently updated General Plan Circulation Element. (DEIR, p. 6-4) T-2. The Project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South intersection at 1-15. (DEIR, p. 4-94) T-3. The Project applicant/permittee will contribute a fair share toward the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the Project's contribution toward cumulative impacts: Intersection Required Improvements Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps Additional southbound left-turn lane Additional eastbound through lane, plu convert westbound right lane to free righ turn Widen southbound movement to dual lef turn lanes and one shared through/righ lane Additional northbound left-turn lane, plu eastbound and northbound free right-turn lanes Signalize and provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound left turn lanes with a shared through/right turn lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane for westbound approach. Highway 79 South/La Paz Road Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road (DEIR, p. 4-94) Provide southbound and eastbound dual left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps. 3. Supporting Explanation Cumulative impacts on these roadway links at Project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near 1-15 . will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as noted in the EIR, will be significant and unavoidable. . . . Section 6. Findings Concerning Alternatives to the Project. The City Council hereby declares that it has considered the alternatives identified in the EIR as described below. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or to the location of a Project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly attain most of the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead agency is not required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in an EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over a proposed Project and (1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a Project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible. The City's objectives for the proposed Project and the Project area are to: . Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services . Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base . Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions . Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula . Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses . Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City The objectives of Universal Health Services, the Project applicant, for the proposed Project are to: . Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities . Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices . Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state- of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors . . Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures . Provide a regional hospital facility that is centrally located, with access from a major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and the region A. No Project Alternative - No Build 1. Description The "No Project Alternative" alternative assumes that site conditions would remain the same as existing conditions, and no development would occur in the near future. (DEIR, p. 5-4) 2. Finding The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative does not meet any of the Project objectives identified by the City nor the applicant. However, it has fewer environmental impacts than the Project. 3. Supporting Explanation . This alternative generally would avoid the significant air quality impacts associated with the Project and would not generate any additional traffic. No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be less than those resulting from the Project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project, it meets none of the Project objectives identified by the applicant and the City. (DEIR, p. 5-4) B. No Project - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan 1. Description The "No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan" alternative assumes that the Project site ultimately would be developed pursuant to current General Plan land use policies, goals and policies, and zoning criteria. The site would be developed pursuant to the standards of the Professional Office (PO) General Plan designation and the applicable zoning of PO and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO- 8). This development scenario could yield approximately 769,000 square feet of commercial and office development, based on current zoning regulations and an assumed floor-area ratio of 0.5. (DEIR, p. 5-4) . 2. Finding . The "No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan" would not attain the City's objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, or the applicant's objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. It would potentially have greater air quality and traffic impacts, while potentially having reduced land use and planning impacts. 3. Supporting Explanation This alternative could result in potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced compared to the Project. Noise impacts associated with helicopter operations would be avoided. However it would not attain the City's objective to encourage future regional hospital and related services nor would it attain the applicant's objective to provide high-quality health services to Temecula or surrounding communities' residents. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the proposed hospital Project. (DEIR, p. 5-6) C. Alternative Site - Corona Family Properties 1 . Description . The alternative site considered for this Project includes land now owned by Corona Family L TD Partnership located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South. The site is comprised of three adjacent parcels totaling approximately 39.5 acres (APN 952150003, 9.61 acres; APN 952150001, 9.56 acres; and APN 952150002, 20.34 acres). The two smaller parcels are designated within the General Plan. as Community Commercial and are zoned for Community Commercial use. The larger, 20+ acre parcel is not located within the City limits, but rather adjacent to the City within the County of Riverside. The Project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20. All properties would need to be under the applicant's control for the Project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel. (DEIR, p.5-7) 2. Finding . The "Alternative Site" alternative has the potential to result in similar traffic and air quality as impacts the proposed Project, and could also result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use compatibility impacts. This alternative will not attain the applicant's objectives. However, this alternative would attain the City's objec.tives. 3. Supporting Explanation This alternative has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the Project does not. Also, the alternative site would require annexing a portion of the site into the City of Temecula. Noise impacts of this alternative could be greater due to slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the Project site on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to determine impacts. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the Project. The alternative site would not attain the applicant's objectives because the site is located farther from the broad population to be served City and the site has limited access. The alternative site would attain the Project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula. D. Access from Dartolo Road 1 . Description . The "Access from Dartolo Road" alternative would require the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the Project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the Project site. For . this alternative, no access to De Portola Road would be provided, and those vehicles oriented to/from De Portola Road under the proposed Project have instead been assumed to utilize Dartolo Road as an access point. As with the proposed Project, the access points along Highway 79 South were assigned the majority of the Project trips (63 percent), with a slightly lesser percentage of trips to Dartolo Road (33 percent) and the remaining (4 percent) Project traffic assigned through the reciprocal access to the adjacent development to the west and to Country Glen Way. Utilizing Dartolo Road as an access point would provide direct access to Margarita Road at a signalized intersection. According to City staff, there has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road intersection. However, currently there are no plans to do so. 2. Finding This alternative has the potential to create greater environmental impacts than those of the proposed Project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the Project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the Project applicant. 3. Supporting Explanation . . . . Traffic and biological resource impacts of the Access from Dartolo Road alternative could be greater than those associated with the proposed Project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection than are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal were removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South, as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. Additionally, the biological impacts of this alternative would be greater than those of the proposed Project, as the Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the Project. (DEIR, p. 5-14) This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the Project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the Project applicant. (DEIR, p. 5-14) E. Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road 1 . Description The "Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road" alternative was conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in conjunction with the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road access, as described for the proposed Project, would be provided with Phase I, with access limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound left-turns would be prohibited. Upon construction of Phase II, this alternative would require a third access via an extension of Dartolo Road, as described above for Access from Dartolo Road. This alternative would involve the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the Project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the Project site. (DEIR, p. 5-15) 2. Finding This alternative would not avoid nor eliminate adverse environmental impacts; however, it attains both the City and the applicant's Project objectives. 3. Supporting Explanation . This alternative would not avoid the significant traffic impacts associated with the Project. The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from the proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the De Portola secondary entrance. Biological resource impacts associated with this alternative would be greater than those associated with the Project due to construction within a jurisdictional wetland. The Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the Project. This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the Project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the Project applicant. (DEIR, p. 5-20) F. Construction of Hospital Only 1 . Description The "Construction of the Hospital Only" alternative would result in a smaller development with no medical office buildings, cancer center, or . fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative was considered as a means to reduce the overall impact of the Project while still providing the community with a regional hospital. (DEIR, p. 5-20) 2. Finding This alternative has the potential to reduce environmental impacts and it meets the City's objectives. This alternative, however, does not attain the Project applicant's objectives. 3. Supporting Explanation The "Construction of Hospital Only" alternative would result in reduced impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there would be a reduction in the total footprint of development. Therefore, the visual impact, trips generated by the Project, and short- and long-term air quality impacts would be less than those associated with the Project. Noise impacts associated with mechanical equipment could be reduced. While this alternative meets the City's objectives to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility of the proposed Project with surrounding uses, it fails to meet . the City's objective to support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base. . . . Furthermore, it does not meet applicant's objective to provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would result only in construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels of rehabilitation or any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant's objectives. (DEIR, p. 5-22) Section 7. Findings Concerning Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council must balance the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to recommend approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital. If the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable." The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that will occur as a result of the Temecula Regional Hospital. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Final EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section 5 of these Findings. The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Temecula Regional Hospital. The City Council finds that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Temecula Regional Hospital that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers. The City Council further finds that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Temecula. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Temecula Regional Hospital to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Temecula Regional Hospital, and having weighed the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: 1. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide necessary medical services to the local community, including but not limited to emergency, acute, outpatient, and cancer medical care and physical rehabilitation services. 2. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with new . employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services workers. 3. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will support the diversification of Temecula's economic and employment base, including but not limited to biomedical, research, and office facilities. 4. The Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located, with access from a major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and the region. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital that cannot be mitigated. The City Council further finds that each of the Temecula Regional Hospital benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. Section 8. Review and Independent Judgment of the Council. The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the . Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council. Section 9. Certification of EIR. The City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Finding The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 6 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant: short-term and long-term Project and cumulative air quality impacts, noise impacts associated with the potential number of emergency helicopter flights, and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. B. Conclusions 1. All significant environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital's construction and operation have been identified in the Final EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of less than significant, except for those impacts listed in Section 5 of this Resolution. . .t' ~., 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital that could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Temecula Regional Hospital have been considered and rejected in favor of the Temecula Regional Hospital. . 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Temecula Regional Hospital override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Temecula Regional Hospital. Section 10. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Section of the Final EIR and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. Section 11. Location of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director. This . information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Section 12. Certification and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of 2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk . [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, -Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk . . . . EXHIBIT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM . . . . . :ii: <C tt: C) o tt: c.. C> ~ o a.. w a::: c z I...... <C<E C) z 02 o I- - Z o :E z o - ~ C) - I- - :2: !::: a.. C/) o . "J: ...J < ZO::: Q,w C), w...J 0:::< Z <- ...JU- :) U w :E w I- w :I: I- LO o o C\l .... Q) .c E ~ o z iJi - t1l o :;; <( a: CJ o a: a. CJ z ~ o D.. W 0:: c z <( CJ z ii: o I- Z o :2 z o ~ CJ E :2 ...J <( l- ii: I/) o J: ...J <( Z :g~ ow NO:: a:<( w...J ~G Ww >:;: Ow ZI- z o i= () ::l C o 0:: I- Z O~ Q) ro ro:O ro._ ..c__c :> O::-c::.!:::ro(/):> a..roQ)L1."'C~ro -..cEwQ) ..c Q)-C.!:NQ)+-' "'O~e::C:J>- O:J-50rolll@ ()wcc2>CtIa. III lii Q).Q O:g Q) cD Q)+-'Q)c_ ~.8:E~L....c:B ::s .- CO 0 (f) OtJ)ro~ ....c .- 0 t::: CJ) w 0 lIll1.-Q)Q)W0. &o::g;U:; III ::a:roQ>(J) .~ u ..erne ._~ -0>0a> :OQ)ro..cE~:S ::S.c,...;'!:: +-' a.........;;;s:c'-",o ,+-'- 00' C ~o~c"",o.ro +-' 0' COi (f)'. ~ ':;:Q)r.n~C)cc: :> U) Q) 0.- /CO:".o Q) 0 == C ~-,""--:'- <..> a. c..:::J E-:s"co ..... E'~-?:<---u C:::::J c:-r""..q__ m a. o._O}(D-~ "E Q)~:-- u > 'U Q:; 0' ..c:~:c 0' c > o h-:~:'- L.. m '+- o <<::_LI,; ~ a. 0' ro-wroo..- 'wu.::sctJQ)C> c'O> ___ u _ (f) C _'~ .~ Q) C "0 'c ~ Q) t E Q) c.<:: 11.:o0Q)E 0:: .- 0.1- c;;;., "",:JQ) :J =", ""'''0:: - u c ro :2:'-' ~ 0'- ~;;{ ~~.i....'- :0 B-g E O<'?0.':!2 ro ~ ~W E =::s ",0- .C 0''''--''_-,,--_ L... +-' m >. a.. 0_.0-- <( C > C>>.Q)"O> .f::!: E 2: . t ro C 0.11. lIl-Q) O:JOO~u a. .!::-cLL.:;::;$: Q)O>ro:2:Q)lIl O::roCQ):2:Ero _W..o (J) "0 c__.5Q Q)-O cQ)ro=~roQ) co E.!: S: ...... ..-..tt:: CJ)CLLt5.8~~ .5 e Q) CD.5-Q) ~o "5 ..c .0'...... .. ~ c+-'L.........L.. ~w- a.2.E ~ 0' ro 0' Q) ~ CtI 2"--..cC)Q)U) E~-:Q)~Q) c: 0' '---. 0' +-' ..c L.. .Q~-g_.5_ ~ niCOcn(/)CID(O ",0 Q) ~ Q)"O Q) .- :JQ):JE :!:<J}.,Ccn,no :2:E-ro cC' .....(00)0).-0'"0 C/Jo'-~> +:::;Q) .- cmum+-' ~r--5c..ccc>~ "'.- ro.- a.o..c.Q~ :!:E oLO~m~c:-EQ) 'UT""" _o>::soun m c - +:::; CJ) Olt+:: c: o ctI._ co Q)'- C =--:!:;2 (1)- 0.- .- - a. c co Ol (/) ~Ulll .<::uo.'- Olo(/) Cf)C roC/)I-c- 0 - coo._ :J"O_(I):;:::Ol 0- u<::ro<::ro:oQ)u OlcoccO):Jgco E <.0 .Q ~:e en Ol ~ Q) '-E ~~ I-~g>~ >,(J)CO CX:>O::Q)Q)-"QjQ) -00 ~rJ) ~- 'f""" "O_CO >,NCOC.,gQ)CO..c _ :JO 00- .- C 0 +J I- c .C (J) OOQ)ro Q)Q)~ :;:::c:rn.~c:::J Q)uc:;::::.((Q)cm ..c Q) Q) -- - '+- :J c 1-c/)I-Ew~<::Q) -", o <:: Q):;::::' :oro :J C 'E 'E ",= ro Q) E 5 ~'" o <:: Q)'- Q) u ~ :J ",:0 Q) ~ :o~ Q) 0 ~- _:0 ",C <:: ro :;::::.~ .- C E Q) ';:' E -"C o rJ) .~ - > u C lliQ) E:O -- Q) - "'u C Q) ';;:jll= .- ro E :~ <:: .... 0 0:;::::' _u -lIlro ~~Q) o~~ ::0- ro -0. '" ' 2cQ) 0.- .......' _.~ roC07 Co .~_:::Q)>, c: ._~ C..o':-:l:-" :~:;i~i)~~; t::>::,~ :J Q) -:0 o ~(/) O).C C C.- 0 ro._ :0 0.- .- 0) co o ~ Q; >>-0. ro-"o Q) III Q) :o-u :J u C uroro co. .- E lii 0.- - 0) 0) o!: .~c co e.>, E c..~ Q)O"O ~Q)<:: _....ro o ~ C -""0 Q) .Q :;::::. --ro -"roe: roeQ) u Q) o.E~ Q.Q)~ ro-o. lIlg.>- Q)<::-" :s (/) Q) (/)~ E ro:o- Q) C ~ E ro g! C C 0 .Q.Q (/) --- ro u u ",roro :;::::'Q)a. :2:E.~ Q) Q) -:0 ..c..c(/)- __t::(I) ....... (/) ot;: 0.- a. = Q) ro ~.~ o :J CD"O co e C co 0)._... E E ~ '" 1-Q)E(I) .g I- 'c m (I)....... 0"'0 o.oEo Z' - <5 .- = a. ~()ro::J cQ)......."O O..c 0 C EI-~ro o Q)Q) - Q) .- - - 0 ~ ~ <(co "-:3 aa.~O wQ).E~ 0"" III Q)2~co -E~:9~ u III 0 OrnC:=: -.......oc -ca.o U III E Q) - Q) :.aen~Q) :JQ)(/)..c en 0.__ :0 >- >- .-.C +-,..0 ro~Q-U -a -..... (I) -E;.2:;(]) "0 -,y,c ..co> UQ) I- 0 .~;E a. O'.Q) . ~- E C "!:~ ro.Q fr'0. CD co ro meO E Q) ~."a~,:o "- ,,',-,,< . ....... .e,,:~i'rn .!: :::JoE;c i';'~ to c 0) R~ Q)oQ)Q) CD_ c::: 1- <(- = :oC:o ro Q) Q)E --':J U Q) 0 ~:o - lIla; Q)- ~ C 0 5-~:2:.Q Q)Ce:!: ~oo(/)O) <D~._o"- 05 +-' 0..- 'f""" c ~o!:2 g. coQ):;:J"OQ) ~ ~~ -Q)<:: ;;; roQ)<::ro cc..ccen O.__:J:J U"'O,,-gro Q)~.E"01i) C/):J :OQ) Q)o()~::; -g.!:5i -(/) o III ",lIl &'l Q)roc<:: (/) ~ 0 c Q)~"O:;:Jc f::rnCO~o Q) Q) '" .- ~ --m lIlE:olii.2> &52E"" ._roQ)E .2 ro 5, f:: ~ .0 g.Ci).2 ~ Ii 'E ~ lii -5 roro :J_ U ro Q):o Ec Q) ro I-Q) - ~ Q) ro > .C "0 OQ) ""lIl ~ ro ro-" a...~ rJ) ~ C .~ Q).Q Q; ClIl- 0_'0 co ~ Q) E [J):O~ alllQ) o ->,-E N:t:::Q C')O~ '<tQ)0 ~:52 ~ <:: Q)~Q) O'~ E ~~ 5 .- 0 05:0 ro o.~ :J U :J III :J U ",lIl Q) <:: ~ E:o.2 Q)Q)C I-Q)ro -u:o o e Q ~ a.1i) (3'05 Q).;o Q) ~~....~ ....... "'- .':!2 . ~ . co .' .n_ O) - cJ)' ~CQ) - Q);: :3~ "'EO' C ::S' Q) .00 0: 1- .C Q C4- 0."00 EQ)o. omP U Q) Q) en:5:O - ro <::-- Q) co.m E- > :J 0 ro U III <:: 0.!!1 Q) "0 0. Q) Q)o-" ~OQ) - .> -Nro O"'~ <:: LO III roNQ) '6"'E .9 cO +::; en.- ....... :J E e U 0 ro -> Q)-Q) ~ro- I-O~ . . ::;; ;;'i C) o 0:: n. C) z i= 0:: o a. w D::: c z <( C) z ii2 o I- Z o ::2: z o ~ C) E ::2: . ...J <( l- ii: VI o J: ...J <( Z It) 0 05 ow -; ::;;13 ww >::;; Ow ZI- III III ::I Gl -- ell 0 ;;jz Gl - ell C C o :;:: Gl ii E o u .s!C) ..ac '(i) "S: cot:: O:!:::: ca COCO.. III 0 Gl~ D:: III l!! ::I III ell Gl ~ c o :;:: ell C) E ~ t) ca Co E <h (ij '" 5 Q) 10 o Q) E co z - 'E a; a. '" c~ :2 "S Q) .0'" <(~ roc: ~ :5:-::::' 'c u<;;-; ('IJ <1)_"0 E cC 'E CD Q) co Q) I-~Eo> E o'E~.~~~ z..5 a.g~ a. ._~ Q):J co Q) Oll.OlDVlO ~.g~.~o~.:B <5 ~~.s ~-co-Q)C)ro'+"-c t: Q) -Q) C '0':.:;;: Cl ro 0 Q) E Q).... "- - en (f) 0..0"0 Q.Q):t::: :J-c -.cQ) >E .ororo g>~o-:5_~ E=CDu:i .- a.L: .... C"o, m ro co E- "0 :> 0 CD:J 'C ..c (,) =ro>'+"-O-OQ)-g0 ('IJ :J "oCf)co __ Q)Q. .0 m Q) - :Om 'C ro lJ)"'C E roSE ~ ctI.H 0 ~.Q..2:;: - '>-E Q) "t: CI) - o..c o ~'.o :: 0 g! ~ :J ~ .~.Q) Q) Q)::JJ:: 'E co 1:: ~ = g > UJ.Q:lo"O ~ 8.o'O.~ ro =ffi ffi ;; ~ ~= "'0 C C ::J..c([)Q)2 :cO>cctljg ~U).o(l)'1i)~ c€ro 0 --::=::: CIJ &. 'C C)&.$ <D-g ~ .9~~ eo~'~ (J) a.~...._ .... (/J C..CD C -g ~ 8 _ [~ .o,z-cQ)O':J-L..=..cQ>:t:i c._ctl ....0000>0).....- Q..Oi5..5 a..o.EO.r::= a.E ~ , <( co __ (ijO E = 0 _....... Q) 0 ~ VJ~'c..g-~-5'::: t5~(ij~-I-Q)~ .!E.:i.H.c ~ ~~ e 0 a. ro (.)"-:"..c C) . c..CI)z...c~:C(f.l:t:::l!! "'O~~30_~ffi~o Q>Q)(IJ:>-W:> 0 ooc--oro..c:>QIi= o 0>(1)0 0_.... c..~"'O_:O.E:~::-(ij CD E::Jc.~Q)(/)2:pa. Q.-octlOEcP--co. o_o.cc.Q):J ~~.c~-go~oQ) I-.Eg'ro row..c a.fi U) (ij '" :E <= o ~ a. E Q) o 10 o 0 23- "E2 '0 Q)"cp tD a. c 5 o 0 C) 0 C):;::: -~.~C).~~ o:JJ2.~J2a. 'C ~'3 :J'3 ~ 0.._.0"0.0._ - -~ 0 C) Q)t:: <= a.ro:O 0> 0.= C <= U):J :ero.og . ~ Q) U Q)~ Q) .00>(/)0. -~t~ <( en 0._ "0 _ C C C (]) co (])' '-g'Een E O'Ct:::'~Ct:::f c ro -0 Q)iro", ~.!S! f5=s 1Udif o ll. 0 lD "l\lr} - Q)"O w+':.\],o;:; 00 Q) > ,t::72. l-,;fE{'N;~,~:g:k~ rtjf;~W~~~f:l..:} );'>"'6 -~ 0 c ..c:2L ;'~;\f~ -g _ $:i::';:g.: '" \j:clf\en E (I,) </,,;O'/Q) '~lt~~(f~ i > a/': 0 L. oco~~'--- ..a (6,0--0 ro_.c':O~Q) en S en C O. 3:'0.. CO"O o en CI.l en C Q) -g~g'3:~~ .;: :O.g m~ _<p=ccoO> :.:{f:i..5 '~0l0 N <l: U) (ij '" :s c .Q a; Q) a. Q) E E Q) E co 0 10 co z 0 0 z .f'J - .~ o Q) "a. 0<'>'" -<=<= o~~ .C ~'3 0. ._ .0 - U) 0 <= Q) J!:!u_ a. C .- ",gJE _C(I)tD 0'0.. (I) a. 3: co';; en tD ~-.~ .;; "Ol-o;Q Q) C -- a:: ctS'C:J _ 0..0 co :; <.> Q) E <= <= Q) Q) Q) '-g'EOlE _.-t::: ct:::' o E ctS:O ro .?;> co 0..= a. '_,,_ W:J <P U%~OlDO ;,~,""~ "0 <= co N ~~€~" I- Q) C) 0 ,<>a,',)(lf 0;;, O.c C E_ ":;frro/ "_.c..~ '>:,:a~-5 50 r3t:::- CtIc_ (l,)oe: = Ci.',ro 1-'0 C Q) ~ev ~ VJ D (;j a. (ij Q) >.+:i _.ot:::C <.> Q) Q) co _~ >. a.:g CD 0 co 0 VJ t>>t>>6.E6.~ ,., '" iii ::I CJ ~ o ~ Q) tl co ~ .. .s:: o iii :J U) :> g>~ ~ ~ - 'i5..c Q) 0 0 0 co U)'U 3: _:;::: c:;;;;:: u3:<p.80~e~..g VJ.~(fJ-2ococoa. -O>oco__(/) __ ai Q) a.=&'jg >. 3: ai 0 0, :;:ue(/)o-eID(OmcQ) 0:J 0..0 0 (0'>.2::.0 I- c-gQ).c-~Q)CioCO o '-..c: Q) Q) ..c --0 :;:::o.-..c:JE--O"Cc ~- .::'!:o~e~(O 0..Q.20c':::~Q)Q)...... e.Q)u:CO(l)Q)~:g~ o ~ ~.Ql~ 3: 3: ~ ~ c: g=EQ)=.~oooQ) _ S:._.c S: >I 0 0.0 ::!; ~ C) o lJI: D- C) z ~ o 0.. W 0:: c z <( C) z ii2 o I- Z o :E z o ~ C) E :E ..J <( l- n: rJ) o J: -' <( z It) 0 015 Ow NO:: lJI:<( w-, 10 :::l ::!; 0 w w >:;;: Ow Zt- l/l l/l ::;, Q) ... ... lG 0 (ijz Q) ... lG C C o ;: Q) C. E o u .!!C) ..cc "U; "i: C 0 o ~ CO Q.cQ. l/l0 Q):!!: 0:: l/l ~ ::;, l/l lG Q) :!!: c o ;: lG C) E :a: ... CJ lG Q. E z- 0>- o >>= cO ma. >-~ .00 -oc Q).Q om ,,- -=> o 0) ~" a.~ <J) ro '" E " 1ii o " E m z - o " .9gg>~ o~:QE -c ~'S Q) fi.._..ca. - o ~.k2 c.- H <J) " .!:Q<c.. O'C>> _c 0,12 "-=;::5 JiLep '" c '5 '" ~ '" , Q) ~ 0.. (Q'(i)~ot)(ijQ)~ .c c.Q_.~~..c a (I)~1Uroe Q) l-o~a."C=<<iE Q)..Q ro ffi.c Q) "0_ O)~ cnt- (])-Ci) C\J c""" c _ ~~~'5h.QU)O --> mo(6C S::._ --N(Q>,. t: 0::: co (f.I 'ca.~ Q) Q) U' c..tDl...'OlU~ 'E +:t.co ---c"" C--Q)l...::::JO) E 5..c:_c..g.ro'oo5t :=::::<(Z'acQ.l (0 8:::1--00.1])"0.9 g. m<DO:::cro:= 0 _-ct1 c: "0 '" ~"" -0 " 0) .S ~c"5> ~~-~ "E5j_Ql9.eE2 ~ 8 0) l3 E .$ 8:.g .!2 ..... u<("O.3"oo m rnn. ~ a <( E .g c ~.9c 0>' 00).2 :g:m 0)"0"00::0'0,,;::- ui 2"OQ)g@.~l920~ 0) 1ij~:5m xE::::Jt)Cl:E .~ 5::::J Q)~O Q):@c 0)";::000 0"0 >--z x::::: O.c 0. 0 eOC,-OmU-Q)Cu -. a..g'~.EZ~E-g rog-ro E~ Cf}o~~'~.g ro 00 ~ 3 CD:>c~-I-E_u)c:=;t> >t;'~.~o~ ,'c~~'~8:2 1:::-;; 00<( (l)C!> o.m.9 C/) CIJ-- ~U-Eo~9 ~~~'E~e "", m Q) en _ u... co <D > (l) _ m <J) ;rg E c o ~ 0. E o o ., 1ii o " E '" z '0 .... SSo Q) .E=fl....Q) ooO)oo;:).gu ......cc.:t::.... C l... m-- s:: 1;) a. co O::::J"'C l:: c"'O ::::J 'C en ~ Q) 0 c (/) n..!!2 OlQ.U m.~ >-~<J) o.g c c 0 [~~ => E ~ o ~ " o"a. o a. 0 '0(:; '023 ~~-g ~.~ c:!:::roCQ)UJ ~Ecroc..c (/) Q) 0 ~ >..Q .!a c..:r;.!a g ~ .9g>2.9~~ o=cooo:Jo -c~5.c8"- Q..OlOQ.O$:! '", J!!~"",\, :J ,'!i':''' o,,,,;,iff"<i' E C ., " ..... g> E .........-t o c m z.ca. ._12 Q) 00..0 . (") . (ij Q) "E"'1tr (/) Q) :;;S:"Q),,'O e!:.c C Q) Q) Q) c: ro Q) 0) (1);13 ro .c ,,,,;.cc. :J"O Q)..c .c u 0 _ ..c ~;~''E:c_.....,,1Jj'.p,oroo ~ -~:go- :J Q),:Q) Gi-'in 0 .c Q) >: = >.:J 2 Q) .... o 0)> ~ o'Q) _ .c> ro..c UJ _ U 0 U ro'O) ,"':J ro x- .c UJ (/) c:........ C C C 'woo 0-"0 U (/) "0 .- C ro Q)Q)m'-roc.-Q) Q)o:J Q) ~y 0 c:""'" U ~ ~ .:5 c-~..c .- E(~__-g:>~ g c ~ (I);;-o',ro .... u c.;"cEJ22 ;::;;;;'ro Q) _ <'ffi' a ~ ft o :J,P =,'. cO"o ~ .Q.c roQ)(5..c -1::0 ~o2 ~a..- Q) 8 ~~ ~ t=.s;:t:..:s"C 'c a._ 0)-0 0 .: c c o:aroQ) -gO)~(/)m " ~.s O'l.~ 0 'fEn_ -E c:: ~ ~ .5g..c~ro:Eit: co,-:J-_uQ) roO)Q.(/)Q..omO '" a <( c E Q) q:6 I ~ $ g ~ !9~..c u>. lJJ;ro((.Q :J"C= Q)E..c ~~.S'Oro ~.s~.c~-g~Q)ro1i)cQ; a.roUJ-- o.c........Q)roa. Q) .0 c 0 Q) ro "- - <1> -00 <J).r: .=oo--(/)' Q)~c '0_ <( (1,):;:::::; Q) 0 ro C u (f) 00 Q)e >. (l,)ro:JcOlOCc::P_-5.c..o EroQ;-o.Q-OOo~o'O(/)"'O . (f)a."'O-~ ,-Q)(/)Q)~Q)O a;coQ)a.:J5uiQ)c..cQ).c.c~ .....Q-a; Ea;:p Q)~ o.Q o-.~O tD~~Q;~C~~O.5~~m::c S;::.-.""'c C:"C (])..cU .-_ ro!9<( oEeQ)occ..Q)c~E3.c:(I)O -J <Da.O)o roo > ctIro<D;;> Q.CV(/) <J) a. E '" ~Q) .r:.r: .,- >5 Q;-~ >-0 :;::" .!ro ,,-- eg " <J) o~ . . :;; ~ Cl o ~ 0.. Cl z i= ~ o "- w ~ c z <( Cl z 0:: o I- Z o ::iE z o ~ Cl E ::iE . ...J <( I- 0: lI) o J: ...J <( Z 11)0 015 Ow tlj :;;a Ww >:;; Ow ZI- III III ~ Gl .... .... CO 0 Ujz Gl 'lii c I: o ~ ii. E o u tIl>. I: 0 .- I: ... Gl .8~ .- C" I: Gl 0",- :!;'IL A-j <::h. -:;;:!ij)--,_c Ecg. .- -- l- CO. "C.!:! Gl- ...0. .- a. 5-<( Gl.... 0::0 ~tIl .01: 'iij .;: .2; I:ot O~ n:s 0.1:0.. III 0 Gl:!; 0:: III Gl ... ~ III CO Gl :!; I: o :;:; CO tIl :;:; ::E .... o CO a. E "' "' ro ;m "' :E ~ c C .2 0 "' 1ii " i5. " i5. " E " E E .& E 0 1ii '" 0 '" '" u c z u c z "'15 ,s" .9 g ~2 lo... co:O"E O::J:= lo... &.~B ~ '" "5 U "'0 Ec:: 15 "", Q) 1-0) E '0 .8;;~~:_ ~>~&:,*:ljg:- umooo .; " u := o ro u '6 " E Q) ,s - o I: o "' [lJ " c. o rol)'~~O -Vi~:otEO-Q) Ti (l) _ = E .m " _00 CD lo... ~ (l) .e.Q E ~ en E ~2 ~-g ~Q5'~ e c u) ':;:J c: o..c..~ 5 ~Q)e -o+:l u c. '" = c.."C (1)3 a. ctI~rorn g. Q) 8? ro (I) - ctI .... "0 en (f)._ a @ Q) ~E e--o:e.- .e Q) 0 c-"C._ (,) ro'u==-ro ;::.!;oo~.5u oj o ]3 ~ .f: c.S :c~m 0000 g 16~ Q)E~~.B~~~~~ Sromg co>~Q)oQ):Proc c::JJ::([ -"OQ) -S-..cCO.-Q)4-CDCT- o C (I) ".cc--t E o~ "-.8m 1:5 co (lJ ~E 19.5 E ~~ c (/) 'co:5 Qj Q) oo8? ~ C:::I:5::J Q) Q.E "EQ)u'::: C oou;>o=.-u.c >c Q) L. Q).!:"'O () 0 3: ._"- Q) Q) ro2<9 0.----._(0=0.-0(1)=>->- c e:s; e co "0 Co ~.c.9? ~~ Q)JS! Q)o..>ro=Q)ro..coo"O..coo::::c::J CIJ c.c Q)"3 Ih >-3- Q) 0,-0 0 (,) 03~l... m- ~U<<l~<(o..Q) a. 0 :> (tl (/J .... ro co a. :J "C -- Q) E E e c e c.g-g g en E16 c E..c 01-" Q..:::t:. 0>0_.__ CO._ ":- co 0)_ (,) ,,'15 ,s", .8 g ~2 o ~:g "E 'C en-s Qj Q..~..c a. 0) I: :g '5 .0 "'15 ,s" o U"' _c:t::' ~ '" E 0" ~ &.~ ~ '" "5 u " E I: " 0) "E 1-1: -.- t:: 01:", z.1:c. ._~ OJ un.o '0 .E1 uooroQ) 0> c 00 CI) ::l.!:: ro -5 c ai U c.. .S;.- c.. rn Q) ro 1i):>-,-Q)'x Q) E u"o:>'\.q:,}]><,_" ~ .0 Q) ~,;'9/_c~: ' '(1)"-;' - "C h;,:fc:1A:::'ZQ .8 -Q) -5 CI) c<~0':"-f~1tO -0"' co" Q) c IDCl:I::_/> ~ c E ~ -- Cl)v>,,;>;-, _ Q) -- J:" > .a cb C;;_2\:,~ ~ c a. t: :;::; ro C") .2t:~_O ro 5"C ~ Q) Q)< ro E-c'l1?,-.:c..Q) ~ E 1:", C. a.Q)?J.C c,w"E..c 8.. co "0:;:' " :;:. 0: -c (\::1":>>-'0 - ro c c !' C co 0) C'ro\u - E 1i) ro rofc',_': co (.) c ro X:::O: C Q) ID ::l-~:f:,C' (.) en:;::; c 0:,': (f).Q-..c"O c:-:n.<;'J a. "C ~ .2 .0:0.- 1) - _ (I):a.> a. f6 0 15 -fig,~ 2 ~ CD C', ottl co - e-(j) c"- 00.- (.) Q)a. Q) Q) rn 0 0)-- cP',c .::l ,:1 a;, E .c .c C (.) Q)..J. ro tE,-o, gc~~ :::: I- t+=.!:: > C'\I:5 O):U~+~ 0..$ co --i o "" :0 ~ ~ Cl o ~ Il. Cl z ~ o 0- w 0:: c z ~ Cl z ii: o I- Z o :2: z o j:: ~ Cl E :2: ...J ~ l- ii: en o :I: ...J ~ Z 11)0 0<; ow NO:: ~~ w...J 1lI => :00 w w >:0 Ow ZI- UlUl :s Gl -- 1Il 0 cnZ Gl UJ - ca 1Il ., C ~ C 0 :;:: Gl i:: ii. .Q E Q) 0 0. <D <.> E <D E 0 10 '" 0 0 Z 01>- C <J .- C ... Gl -S:s .- IT C Gl ~~ ilIi ~~<t c: ~ i= 'tl.!:! Gl- ... Co .- Co 5-<l: Gl.... 0:: 0 ~Cl ,eC m't: COt:: O:t: ns coca. Ul 0 Gl~ 0:: Ul e :s Ul 1Il Gl ~ C o i 01 ;e: ~ tI 1Il Co E c 1:5 (f.I C) 0 2.~ E.~~1i)=5 "-"-"-C+:i Q) ;:)::3 0 0 cna.-o-ooro g'0) :0 .2 ~:J_ 0)"0 0 0>_.15"'C C 5 "". ,J:Z-' co__ :<f/;~ Q) ,!Xl :.;::0 t5 en '(:~:""O 000 ~ :J CD <-......c:t:::::::J....:p I-. to E -0 1i.i'S;: .Q-~:.... Q) c; ct .~!r:~:S 8 ~ -; '" s " <D E "E' <D 0) <D I-cE -.- t::= o c '" ;.-co. :t:::~Q) ua.o ~O~.~E~-gE~~~~1ii ....: :0 ...... Q)~(IJ Q5;9 -~~ ~g ~S-"'Cui.2~:Q~-Ql~ 0l:P .c.... C ' <D :::s .;:: ~ (/) ~ Q)(tl-oQ)OC""'-OQ) 0 m::J >g-cs-cn~<1>..c:g-oa. "'Om oro-(I)13"-oo(/)c>. - Q) --E Q) C CO::o o __ = >. ..c 0 co ~3~~O)"t::Q) 3:cof!?c Q)_~ (/).-.~ (1) Q) Q)"C <1>-0 00 o U c>Q. >a>EQ)+-"U') C ro coeo:.;::lcna..>.oro ~ ~ Q) ~ E a.-5 co :J'5.2 ~ ~ m'~ :ma...l:: ~EQ)cra.c>. '--0 'Ea>t::f!:'! ~.oQ)~.Qg Q) ......c~<<I.9ro= -oooQ) .c"Cca>- JG6c.!a.O -~~~..9 'E~ CI)~{IJEE o () C -= Q) C - (/) (.) -0 Q) Q) -;t::: 2 ~ 0><0 E"(ij 5~.s2- >. <5 E 1i) =.~ .9-1:::e.2 ~ a:; ~ e> 'C Q; 5 2t=E15 5"ro:g~ Od) s: ~ a..a.oro3::EmEro>Uoo.2m .,; a <! UJ Jg 'c i:: o ~ 0. g * U 0 <D E '" z <Db ,sOl 000>(1) _Cc::t::: o~:OE "C ~ e Q) a...._0IQ. 0) Q) ~ -= '5 c~~-Q) (f.I Q) j/>>\," c.o =t co o.,......~ co ,a;;:,Q),. :Oo",J~>"-'O ......~Ji:>. ~ ,~..~?;.'a'gi'Pii> 00 ,1: .' .'>~ C);L:::i..':'o. C c~. Q),:.>Q)';I E ",An~ '" 8 '" 1-1::E c <D w:E".... lo... .:Q)..e O..c -' 0 Q) 0). 0:00..- a....... ""',-:..e '0 ~ '"C :=:">-;~ =t =t...... 9'0) 'E :J/tI.l:<<l' 0'" ':':'":0''' -" .,:',.5- L... e Q):~ +-0' Q)/.." > 0 un>::- E"CiC'"C...... ~ --S9:,'\::::.Z'o ~ ~. :J ~<<>;::.[.:ro lo....= 00 .;:: .r:;"Q)iL: 1i.i 00 .!a 2 ...... o.:.~ .g ~ Ol ~ 0 UJ E 8 -5 ......~~cm "'""<D> 8'''_ o ......>L...Oc: ...... ;t:!:t=" (,) a.:c Q) C5 E.5=a:2-6J5:a ~. -;:: Q) :J =t ro.!: -0 =t ....l... a.. a. (/) a... C/) 3: ctl a.. ';::'i:::it9f cO a <! . I{) . . . :;; i2 C) o 0:: ll. C) z i= 0:: o D.. W 0:: c z <C C) z it: o I- Z o :2: z o i= <C C) E :2: . ...J <C l- ii: l/) o J: ...J <C Z 11)0 015 Ow tlj :;;G ww >:;; Ow z..... III III ::> CD .... .... '" 0 U;Z CD '" .... OJ '" ., 0 'c C 0 :;:: CD co Q. 0 E :a5 0 c. Q) U E Q) E 0 ro '" 0 0 Z '" co '6 [Il ,::>", ~p:O_S Q)"O 0_.= en ::Jij'r-~ :!::: 0::>:"0 E "i::<'Wc <1> Q...!Qt('O c.. ~Cl oCc "en "i: COt:: o ~ CO l1.Ca. III 0 ~:2: '" "5 as"C c E co Q) Q.) ro (l) E I- en E <D "6.~~~.cgg>:2 >-g ~ a. "5 rn c t; :=::::1 co <1> o::J ctI._ orocnOcnO::<O ~ ~o€-g ~~e-g-g g> CO:;::::t $: m:.c:::l- ro CO"::; g-'c>>~ "0,0 6 Q) ~ ..... :::1.- Q) Q):J c: u~ c:= Q.LLU0 OLL-- .-0 _ c: ffi Q) Q) -g- - Q) Q).~ oo..c= 0)-..... ro_~..c:-._I- (0_-0 O)(D .J::CI).....a.:J .c-Oro .c OOc Ez .CI)~I-CJ)_ Q) 0 ..... .- c: Q)..c.9 (.) I CJ) ro c:.C (I) ~e 6c~.-.gctl3 .- n c O>N t:O 0 E E~.~~ ~a: ~8..cQ) Q)Oa.."C ;:; 1i)"C'<t'O.c 0.0 .2(])"5 (1).2Q)~"C E roo.~~tte..c g-s .2 r3:t:::-P C .-a::c:~ 8:~8~~88~~~~~ ",:J Oo.q- CO:::J L.. a. fJ}_Q) _.~(/)<Dt)E Q)"'O(I)E<(~(J)o..~J5cro .cc::JQ)O:J:Jc......mox I-roOl-cncr::OroEt-oQ) ,.: o <( III CD .... ::> III '" Q) :2: C o :;:: '" Cl :;:: :E .... o '" l1. E (." .c.- >.c: "0 Q) d::6)r .... - (.) ~ = 0 s,};' E);E\-- .g -' : ~ ~ ~~ :::~W~ '~:11~ ,.~b~y ffi "'0 ro.~tr;./-7..... l!?-"-~,/ ;'Q)3!Q) o rJ') (j) c<>" "Q) Q) Q) - \;:-~>; /(1))'0. CJ) :5 >. a. O'~ > 4= N - --,;.>.;0,", Q) C C],) ~ (.) co 15 co :a-,:,a:.:-:> f .~.- E ..... Q) Q) "C ..... .,.t'O:.+:H- c .0 .co.... Q) 00.<-=,"9' c Q) = -'):Ji\i~ ~:-:g;fl:" (f) _Q E (lJ '0 J2",> m"'::fJ)(<ro >- - c: ~ 1...'0.!<.'t<%"::'m"'u en rn e (f) (f) Q) ''':-;'}'::'Q)-- "0 -~ 'S; c > (lJ'........ '0 E :6 c,*.Q ~..cN Q)~ 2 Q) 'I:: ~ J2 ~ 'f; u g>... ' IE 0 :; (f) -g ~ c. Q) .o:E ..c ~:i: :,:,.}:;p ~ g,~:s 0 == (lJ (lJ 0 .> J:9 :t:::: (f) c... .... :1::{15 _ 0 Q) (f)..c ~.... E-n1ll3 6~~:8:~$: @_ u~ Qi:y ~ - "0 ro :0=; Q):.< "'5 (f) g .o.~-' ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ Q) ~..., ~ ~ ~ .~;' ~ 8 g-~ 8 g. ~ 8~'1Uy~ 'E '" ~-,,~ '~:0~~' >,'w" . . . . co ro~ro'Om _9_ c _ E-o~~ Q) 0 (f) C'- i3E~~.... :C~Jf~~i;~ : ~ o c... ~'-'j~;''''.::J S2 o 0 ',,~;j;i, ..c co 1;) ~l{fii:t:\. ~ Q5 1;) c: ~/g?:;:fi/i~)., ro m ~ ~\t;€::;;:~~ 3: - q1c.,Lg>.1:: (lJ 15 'Oi~T'- ~..c >,:3co.... - <1>U<1> en > ~> m'oo.;:: 1;.."0 'N<1>,ig"O~O ",- () 0 :is ro >'''0 c... ro '1:: == c E u.; ~~.32 .8 ~ o 'CO . . :;: <( 0:: C> o 0:: D- C> z ~ o ll. UI " C Z <( C> z ii: o I- Z o ~ z o ~ C> i= ~ ...J <( I- 0:: VI o :J: ...J <( Z :g~ OUl N" 0::<( UI...J Ill::> :;:0 UIUI >:;: OUl Z~ III III '" .. ... ... CIl 0 cnZ .. ... CIl C C o :;:: .. C. E o o 01>- C 0 .- C .... .. .8", .- 0" C III 0::,- :iE:u. CD: .c: E'o .- ... I-CIl -c .!:! ..- ....0- .- 0- 5-< ....... ll!O ~O1 .DC .iii '1: .2: COt:: 0:: m O-CQ. III 0 ..~ ll! III .. .... '" III '" III :iE C o :;:: CIl l:ll E :iE t) CIl 0- E "' ro ., :E c: o ~ a. E " o ro U 0 '" .C: :0 c '" 0 0, :g '" 2 c: 1il "C-o c 8~8 (;; > o o IE g c: o :;::;ui 0" 2- -" ",0 " ~ 0- ai 0 ffi :t:::::'......c "'0"0 Q) e Q) .r:. '-..c -0", 0) = " .0 ;::::; ro 'x U) " " a> (1)- ....... 0 ..o.cC 00 cn..... _me::J ro E.QO..... .c <1)16 o~ C/') >'0 .... Q) Q).- coO ai ~~:O() .S! EO-6>~~ Q..uEc::J ..... -~oou.Q)>- eoo:;::::; ..e.Q ....... (OQ) C) CQ.C])>.c c oa..cml-='c 0(0.....0 mo o~..c~:t:::::' CI) ..... ..... C ::J",o.... .- 0 Oc.Q-g3cE Q)roc..mQ)~Q) .2: {J)on..:!::: :!:::-oOcc (I) O>Q)~'-ro_o ~ :::o16~e~o- Q).~<( rnEc.c ..c a;u_ 0 0 Q) I-....UJouua. . t)mc"Ooo Q)..coQ)Q) .0.... oom= ~ " c. c' " 0 .c :;:::; -0 " 't5~ ".c; ,,8"' t'! " 5 ~ g> Q) o-g"g:e ClCl) Q) ttl Q).5 ro ~ ..c 0.--00 ..... ~Q)Cl... O)C)~:!:::ro::J c,!:,!:::! V} 00 oc"'OCi lE.c O::J ~ a.~ ~ CD 0) ro ..... ..... c.. /y.;.,. m to' "'5""'- C O'.F-; m c;, .<'(1):;::- ......::t:,..... ('>~V' ~ 0 1~ z...... g' E:!:.E /'O,;C!~i" ~ ~ ',_~'_c a..c Co (,._l2 Q) :J <D Ull.Oll.O c: o 1j " ~ - "' " o o "0 c: co '" c: :s co t'5 cO o <( "' ro ., :E . " E '" z i:: o :ai a. E o U " ro o " E '" z "-0 "'0 _ 5 C Q) 0-- ~Q) ctl.c 000 OOO)(I)_C:JQ) ..... C c;t:::: e>>.Q .... :;::; "'.-Ec..........- o:Ju.....;::~~:S 'C ~ ~ <D :J :J 0 () 0..._ 0>0."0"0 0 ctI g'", .- " "C";:: ~::J_ ","0 0 <D--C C 6 ..c 0 c 0._ _Q)m~O(J) .9g~52~ 10... co E'O (;) 0;; o :::J 10... c"- .c~Q)~ot5 a..._ 0..__ 0 co ..... . 1:: " / ~ ~ ~s~,f' __ __ Q)<ro:c, C CO "C;;:;'a';' Q) Q)e,,,,.,>' ~ .~~':~;l [g:Q';'~ a. ~.F,,>,qj m.s CO_C:~ c: >. o-Oc = :a tICO Q):m a. :::J", 0> -5 c: ro~'_.s ~ Q) c: Ol:E.- ~ g ~,g,~ oi o <( . . :;; <I: It: C! o It: D- C! z ~ o D. W c::: o z <I: C! z 12 o I- Z o :IE z o ~ C! E :IE . ...J <I: l- ii: In o :J: ...J <I: z 11)0 0<3 ~; :;; a ww ~~ ZI- VI VI :::J CIl -- os 0 U)Z Gl - os C c o :;:; CIl C. E o () ..!!!C) :!:!c "'"t: cot:: o ~ ns c.co.. VI 0 CIl:;; 0:: VI ~ :::J III os Gl :!E c o :; C) E :;; "0 os c. E '" ro "" :E c o :ai Ci. E o o <1> 1ii o '" :; o <1>-0 Ec: C <1>'" <1> 1-0> E 'Q.S z.1ij ">,.;g ~ a. ~'::J m Q) 000(1)0 -"0 >'0"'0'0 mQ)Ci....Q)c ~~E~~m Q) 0 0 Q) ~o~Tc: 2-0520 ~~ffio'oot5 ~ 5: (I) c:....... 2 E_ ..9?2 ~1i.i asro~ lZ'o5 ~c ~'E 0.0 C:'- '+"" Q) . roctlu - Q) .2Ec2~g'~ c. ro m co '(6'c c..E (/)00 (J)::Jc m CD ctl "0 <D >.....Q) ::J _::J..c(l) 0- :V~-I,;.,(I)Q) CD g.u ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ a.~':iE ffi"8 ~ o ~ o <( <1> E '" z '" ro "" :E C .2 1ii Ci. g tJ o 0 <1> E '" z 0> C :c c: ~ 0 0) :g 0> 2 c 00 'C"O c: t1lij8 -0 C '" 0> .!::-< "'C/c,; ,~~t~,. "'1:>>:0 0>2 '.!::cn ~ c OJ 0 00 "" ,:'. 0) Q) c: Q) C Q) Q) 0 -- - CD o:"i);}[ Q) Q) ....~;c;~Ld)>, c: (/).- "'0 .- .c - .... Q) m..o - ULj(,) ..c ..c c,.o,.E".c ";- 1:: :J "0 0 .......2 c: --: :aiT:>.:e',,> .fg~Z3 ...E:~x~ei'+-, o = m () "0 E ~ ,Q _"""0'1i-'iX:i>-g~voo'r2 _;:ro,:;'cD':-- a. ctl 0 CD > _}If,:J;lJ,~;,,- l.... ""(I){:""" --~.l:/L.;. = Q) E .c - ~ -e eg~~:2 =ro :J '_<::><~>(I)>a. 0 &; .- CI) Q) ,2 0 '+- Q)";l::?.:Q- ..c () E :<"':"00::/ 0 UJ Q) L... ..c:..c: c.. '- -;'-m'~-o en Q) ClL:tl)/:..c: _ Q)- o CD_ CD (I) 02":<-""/-(1) (I) ..>.:.0' (.) .... u''ffi as > ffi u U)t;-'(ij;:LL'"O },0'- en:c VJ c.... > Q) Z c: ..c\g.l;:- C i';'" Q) 3': ro~oro (O~ai;<N 00> 0)._ 0 +-' ro 0 3': m'" .s:: .Ee~cn.c~~.s:: 3: t:: Q.-s.s:: Q) a.:!:: :;-;'<<:1 &. 0> - j' 10 ~ E :s: T'"" .-:.'\, ~ o_ x..c: 0 ~ .US 0 -:...-- 'V ,,> 0).- o>+-'+-, 0> 0'" C"')-"t)~ .2 mEooo It:=~NQ)O>~ .::t:.occ OroMoo-t::c o.:::=.~. .s::C'\I c"t) 0 o>c :J _ :J 0. 'V 00 en 0 c 0.._ 0> .b-S ~E~t5.-~t5 (O~::E > ==i::"oC"'):J:moQ)'-ro:J~o <(t;:::2 OC'\l.t:l en()C/)~.t:l 00 o....J._" ~ ~ o <( :!E ~ C> o ll: D.. C> z 1= ll: o D.. W 0:: c Z <l: C> z it: o I- Z o ~ z o ~ Cl 1= ::E ....J <l: l- ii: C/l o J: ....J <l: z 100 015 Ow NO:: ll:<l: w....J 10:;) :!EO Ww >:;: Ow ZI- III III :Ja> ... ... B O. (l)Z ell ... ns C c o 0::; a> C. E o u Cl;>, c 0 .~ c: o ell ...:J .- e- Sa> j(it "iilYlt, "'$' C,,:," .- ..... I-ns 0' '0._ ell- ... a. .- a. 6-<( a>.... 0::0 ..!!!Cl .cc "; 'i: COt:: 0':: cu a.CD.. III 0 ell:!; 0:: III ell ... :J III ns ell :!; C o 0::; ns Cl E :;0 '0 ns a. E "' (ii "" E C o :ai c. E o U " 10 o " E '" z .r.',,, ~ :at' -' c' ~"'C ctl en Ec: 'C-c''C. Q) ttl Q) 0 Q) 1-0> E$:E ...... c":>.1::: 0" o:a't"ca= ro B3 ro g..g at UlDcnOa.O 1:) Q) 0)"0 0....:>."'0 ->:.16 CJ) Q).c:.c: t: ro C L." C '0--- (tiE S: ro rn:>.:o a. ~CI)Q)"'CCf)(J)ctI~ c$(j)E~(D~"CO> Q) 0 c: Q) Q).... Q) Q).... 5n Q)= ~ Q)z, r:: [0 ::1_ OO_J:: 00 -.=m_ 0.-..... ~ CD >. ocn.c:cQ)cc 0<<1 CDg(l)~L5~~~g"'C . (/) 0 (1) ctI .- ctI 0 .c: c 5 :muE~:O"C ffi o~ o .-romoctlQ).c:mo o-oC > ~ 2 ct:-Q)c'O.o(l)__ Q) ro Q) 0 c...Q = U) 0 (I) .c: 0.. -- (lJ Q) C ... :gO>oJQg'.c:--co o>ro'=- :J.- (J)_ c 0 O>c a. EO. o,,~ c.-.~ Q) (I) Q) (I) C 0 "Cu-Q)u:JQ)"O - ::I~8:3:ro8s:ro"5Q)-g Ocnro(l)E!ctiUJe.o=ro N ~ a <( C o :ai c. E " o 10 U 0 0> C :c c ctl .9 C>> U 0> 2 C 1il ';::-0 c B~8 "' (ii "" 'c " E '" z aimc{g ...:::1 ~ <D C -coma.> (J)u,_a. -6> ....... "'0 OOc coco ~w .~-t5 :;::::ICoz. .c:.... ro ~ ro 9;;0:; ~.~.~ = ~ ~ ~(;~~::!~ c ...... s= ~ Q) > ._,.;,Q)jl-t 0 O:JOQ) roQ)~~~~E~ VJ 00_ go Q;.~ o.~rE....-o t3 -g"'01.i) rnN a. g> 0 ~o Q) Q) (J) 'C CD ::J Q) 0 w ~....'>'..J:: -5 c:a Q) Q)"'C r.n 0> g. 0> C 'C::'".o (J)'O) "i:: Q) a. g. .~ .~ ~ c -:8..::- ern',,- 5 _ t: 0 0> Q) t"O 0> ro ~ ro '-wtO ~ "0 2 (J) c ~Q)Q)ro~'c>O~2ro~Q)(J)- -c"'O~ a.~ IDc..tU ~ o'<<f ID ~"'C:a' :::J.5 Ole >< > a.~ >< Q) Q)~>:,a.<<f Cl)r~ 03:.2 a.Q) <<f <<f 0 Q)fi c '.FO..c tU-'.lD c<i ~ a <( "' (ii "" :E c o :a; C. E " o 10 U 0 C o n 0>.5 _~ CI) ~ C ::> 0 00 C o 13 ::> ~ 1il C o o 0> C 'C ::> o '" :; o "-0 Ec C "", " 1-0> E o'~~~ ~;g ~ a. ._ :::J ro Q) UlDcnO ~~ ~-g~.~C!) :Jccro-~o _ g~ 0 0:: (ij a. 8 - .cE c '0 (i):;o:ro.Qo.5E0 . .'. ,'(J-l,;;.,o Q)..c ':r<D"'-"'S';'2 '0"00 > :m.2 ~-1ii\6. m Q) .- c;!::: c'>-~ 0 E m..c 0 "O' :J Q.'l 2> ~ 0 1~:1:f;g a. 0 <<f . "":"-4r '- '+:I -<;':'/x: ai .5E/55_:'a.l:.15 Q.'l:= g wj1:(:5 3: ~~o~;o OJ E Q) La:;~i-O '~:J ~ ~,~/_''- 0>1::: E :J --<. () C'-.- (J) Q) oO'c ro >< ro ~ CD>::J a. <<f Q) I-N_"'C~EE "" ~ a <( . " E '" z 0> . . . :;: ~ Cl o ll: ll. Cl z i= ll: o D.. W c::: C Z c( Cl z ii2 o !:: z o 2 z o i= c( Cl E 2 . ...J c( l- ii: II) o :I: ...J c( Z 100 05 ow t1~ :;:B Ww >:;: Ow z.... 1/11/1 :J Ql ... ... os 0 ti)z Cl>. c:: " .- c:: (; Ql :!:::::I C::C" o Ql ~(lt ,€i '~(CI)~??-c E;!2", i= 1a::t: u'* " .- ~ii. .- a. g.<e Ql'" 0::0 .!Cl :f!c:: tn";: c::ot:: O:!:: co a.c::Q,. 1/1 0 Ql2 0:: Ql ... os C c:: o :;:: Ql ii. E o u '" ro "" 'c c o :m c. E " o 1;; o 0 '" c :0 c ro 0 en ~ '" 2 c 00 "C'O c: 6ffi8 1/1 Ql ... :J 1/1 os CIl 2 c:: o :;:: os Cl E 2 ... u os a. E o>oo$U ~ g>~ 0 +:lQ)> ro" C 0._ 0 Q) (,,) > ~ C,,) e Q) Q) ro c.. N 0.:; (/)<0- o~ 0 <0",'" cn~..o(l) ..cQ)SUi e ~ l... s<<JO).ag> .E ~~ (f.I 5 3:~ 0 g:p.Qc2 ._ co: ctl c: ~~""'E2 'E61?_6 IDol-ao ~ " .c o e .0 ~- "''' roo. -0 . ~:2 0._ ><( o I "'- .C: -oro E= 0'0. ro E '0 ~~ "':0. .. " o.m "'~ .c", ro :; o "-0 E c "' ro I- ~og>5~ iD,s'cU-E - ,,- ~ (/.) > t:::' ~ :>0)(1)....... E ~ 0 ID+:o-go....... .0 roO(/) -""' " "ffi C) e>E ..c c c c > (/.) ~.E.~U O)-o-om :!::::: (I) E 0) (f) ~ IDe.S U-..c3:'O Q) -o~ '0' g 0)'0 C) ~ c a.. c::C '- 0 . m3:.2,S:ooo .cogroc:J 1--'0._3:<0-0 .0 ~ a <( " E ro z c o ~ C. ~ ~ o 0 ;:::~Q) "_.c "'~- cQ)'Q 'c> oOm_ :::::;E~ c (,,):;:::::;.0' o o~..... :2: 0= 0.. .I!l .~ " 0. 0) '0 >. .c 0 -<Dc 00 ro _Co. o ~ :J 'C {/J g o....~ 0 '" Jg :E " E ro z 0. " , >"" 00 o 'a..~?' "l~~-[ (J 0 C<ecL;:f:J rn c Q)o._-',';:;:J';:O ij: -- :5 <U,,<<S:;u---....... E '.;"flU ':';:;;:2 a. Q) ro~~ 0 O.1-}:::(j} ~ l... Q) ....... :<0)- X CD ~-g_ ~;:e~ Q)~ 'ai ~ ~ -c--2:.>~ u)~ .....u:aC(ij13Q)O =c:J~..ccE <( Q) (I) a.. (I) om'.? to ~ a <( VI c: o '" E "' 0. o o :0 ~ C) o D! D- C) z i= D! o 0- w a: o z <( C) z ii: o I- Z o ~ z o ~ C) E ~ -' <( l- n: 1Il o :I: -' <( z 1/')0 015 Ow Na: D! <( w-, 10:;:) :00 Ww > :;: Ow ZI- III III ~ Gl -- 01 0 iilz Gl '" '" - ;m Oi 01 '" C :s :s I: 0 ;; Gl i:: i:: Q. 0 0 E ~ :a; 0 0. 0. " U E " E " E 0 0; 0 0; '" u 0 u 0 z .~~ .,; Ol" C " '" 'C 0 ~ " '" '" ~CJJ.SO cO -..c Ol...:=5.,J. ~.E3:0N 19 .~ " 0. >- o C rn- '" C 0..- 0::;::3 a g, ;t~:!!tcg 5 ~Cl ,el: tn'': I:ot:: o ~ ca a.l:lI.. III 0 Gl:!; It: '" "S -g 0", '" Q)~- +-' Eoc C " " " I-:5:Eg'E 'Og~'E~ ~.g g- ~ g- ua.oa.o III Gl .... ~ III 01 Gl :!; I: o ;; 01 Cl ;; :1E ~ctiE-g~ ->~eoo o '-.!!::::o::: E c..;;.9roe _ (l) '0 a. :rg~~~.9 (fJ l....Q>a.-c ~..E U) Q) -5 ~ "'_-00"'''' .- Q) to t:: E > 5:;-00 0 Q) ~~-O) a. o..~ (.) mr--. ~ ~O.~~>.~ ~:5-o(/)~- = roo. Olg -c ~ a. ..0 0)-- O,,,-C '-10 co ro:O 5..I E " => ~13C3(1)"'02 t- ro.5;: ffi (ij ,...: ~ a <( t) 01 a. E . ~ ~ . .!a '5 .>;~g:f; ro<.'il)::.Q) € ~ E/ ...... Vi c: \:jnRfg ~"$i~.~ .~; ~ ~.s:8: 'i:55"fi"O~ ~5 [ ~ ~<;:g E ~ $, Q) ~ .ro :; c E":.>),';o Q) . g;;", > ~ 0" Q) oQ);p.~ ~}'O;;;S' ~ Q) C) 0 ..c:<:ro 0 Q)/C'YC>> c: - >. c: ...... <,e~~fQ)}t,O" c: ~ "0 ~ 0 0 C U?'d,"";:!~:'o Q)-o .- c: 0.. 0 Q),O:'UD Q) - Q) ~ ~:J:o::;:m2<:i::.o ~ Q) ..c c:-ro 0._ I 0:.=:0::; 0 o Q) c 2 E v "...:..ro (/) a>Eo_l...NO.J:::J E Q):.o::: en Q) --0 (J'J 0 mCQ.woO>u Q)rnl...o~:J.t:::c:m ..c.~ Q) () C 0 Q)"C"'C CD --0 Q.t) B::J 0..0 Q)- <D:::lo<l)'-:S ;t;;'~Q) ()(j >"'-1ic ro c:e l/) cc=eo..o,,-oQ)"o O:.=....2 a. ro (.).g E (.) c: '0 .- Q) >. CD Q.) (/) <( :5 1:: ..0 C Q.) ...J 0 -- (am Q.)Q.)0 a.-w +-,Q.). (/)..0 ~~+-,>E~ eoz ~~m ._ E 0.--. (/) .;::; 0 Q.) a. Q) __ Q.) +-' ~ ~ 0 Q.) (/)0 ~ Q.)'oo,c Q.) 0 U c+-, (/) O,c (/)crn...... Q.)cQ.)::Jro~~ bQ.)+-,'c.!:!2.QQ.)co Oro.c~EQ.) ~.c Q.) U(/). ~ EU+-'Q.)~Q.)~ ta +-' ~.c 'E I ti r-- O'-""':'.c (/) U ~~~_+-'ro~m~~ +-,~+-'_Q.)X~ "'0 >. - rJJroQ.)>.","l;; -.c......ro ~~Q.)Q.) ~-_Q.)..o.-."'_~ cu+-'_+-'ro cc+-' - ..., ~~Q.)cu~ ro ro~o~E~c ~Q.)>Q.)~Q.)~roE Q.)roIDQ.)(I.)~S cu~~EroS.~c~ cQ.)~~E.w ~~m.~fiogge~Q.)Q.)~~umoo ~_._::J(I.)~uroa.t~~oc'3u~ :E ~ g gE16 gg g-g4:.9~ ~g;:C3 ~ z '" ~ E~_ (3 :::J Q.) E ro rJoEQ.).2~ro~ Q.)+-'.~(I.)U.c.2+-' .::J"O:lct):5 00 ::J'- U+:i 0 3 "'01:: 0l",0 "" ~ 8c~ cQ.)= , oE~ ~.s .!!!(/) O(l]~o.... ro o;':s.. (I.) E Q) Q).S 0 :g-- ~ :>..~ Ii: a.'OJ 55'- "'EOtOa.cQ.)c c..o ro (1.)..0 (I.) ',> " '" '0 z '" - .c: .!? ii: ~ " - 0. o ,!,! a; J: .c '" E E o U m "0 '" <D " .c: I- . . :;; ~ Cl o 0:: a. Cl z i= 0:: o n. w c::: o z c( Cl Z ~ o I- Z o 2 z o ~ Cl E 2 . ...J c( l- ii: Ul o :r ...J c( Z 11)0 015 Ow -~ :;;a Ww >:;; Ow Zt- Ul Ul :J Gl .. .. ell 0 iijz Gl U) U) U) <ii <ii <ii 1ii ., ., ., c :E "2 :E C 0 :;: Gl <:: i::' <:: "5. 0 0 0 E ~ ~ ., " 0 c. " c. " c. " U E " E E " E E " E 0 CO '" 0 CO '" 0 CO '" U 0 Z U 0 Z U 0 Z :=Q)Q.> 3:-5.c "0 O>~.:: " "0 .!; > 0 " .s~Q)o " .- ::J E Q) <:: c: o:P"- U) oo~e c( :2: 0 = Co .!tl) :!:!C f/)'t: CO~ O:!::: ca CoCa.. Ul 0 Gl:2; 0::: Ul Gl .. :J Ul ell Gl :2; C o :;: ell tl) E :2; U ell Co E Ol <:: '0 Ol <:: o roc' c 3> _ c.Q 0"-; oO.!Q Q) +.;' -:;::::> E c c ro-- CD Q)roQ)tO I-O>E--Eoc _.51:: Et' 0.0 oCro"Erooo';j::; ~ S 0..= a. ~ .~ . ._~ Q) ro Q) L: > Un.OUOf-c( Ol <:: '0 Ol <:: o Ol <:: '0 Ol <:: o '" :; " " 1: E " ~ ~c - "0 o Q) Lo__ z;."C .E.!Q ._ 0 c.~ UUwO N ~ B~~ro~~.~g~~~~BB~i 1-..... :cE:o:;ggm_......<D.c "C Olo...cOO--Ec>cc..0 200 -oco~Q)~ ro.~Q) "EO> >--...Jro(f)~NQ;ro~ = g a..:!::: (I) 0 ,..- Q),. > a. Q) Q),St g-E ~ (1)",0 ~~ co ~ .cwo Q)'~-5Q)t::rom..cQ) _ E g.1ij a.. Q) c E &...... c :!::: a.. -::Jc.r: cn--I-=ll>(tlS:o jg~tt1(1)-c .... -a> >..c:.cOQ) w"ol:; (IJi-OcnIo--:a5E Q)a.m_c _me CI) Q)~o"'Co"Ocn.....o..s::Q)z. E~~EI~~~~~~~~~rom. O)C<DE OO:::::._::J = "...........:J..... ~o:;::::.....Q.)~>o>trooa. IDOOroQ.) lOOa>(f.l>.,emo_c c-croo(l) ....t;-a..g.=>oa.a:e-.E.....0oroO ~ $c c c(l)_~.......E~(I).....(I)m- Q.a>_ roa; ~ro 0 <D ~._-..e 00 c"O 8 ~ ~ ~.(3..... _ Q)"": a.-g -g ai 3: ('IJ 0 g iEQ):;::::O'Q)~Q.)-gN~~('iJ:;::::oEg.~ I Q.) "5 g-~w ~ 0 ~.:: ~~ ~ =rn co ~.8 cD " <:: .!l C. E o " Ol <:: E " E ::l " o "0 N , Z :me 1::-01"-2 ~ "'O(J)c rn.(5'-Q)I,()J:: 0 .2 t5 0 C ~ en II) >..2> E .r=roQ)U 'cQ)Qi(l)oQi'+= Ch :s; u'O''015 0 > > E 0.._ h 0 (l) 0 >.2 h 0 c;g-Q)~ 0 e ro$-:cm '0 II) 0.0 en O)U (l).r= a.E 0."0 E"O Q) Q)'- Q) '+= <p'- <P II) "'0 'x 0 <p >- en.r= 010 Q) h'_ <p Q) 0 u- (';)('1') Q)~~-c"oC(1)0--5h=ro(1)~ U C';:: ~> C 0._ a. (1).9-en..Q >. 0 .2'.- 0"0 C :;::; - :l 0 o.I U Q) uentj::-S.ocro,oocu 00 ~..c.!ll. cenh.-..cro c.~u;::'CIJ .C_(1) Q)(OQ) 3: 0) _0(1).00-_._-1(0(1)> (0 3 0.. ~-Q) IV; CIJ E m-5 1:: ~ 15 (J) ~ ~ .8 8 ~ C E C cb ro ~ -;; &.u C m Q) :Jc=:;::;uroQ).~Q).~ = <Dh.~ O"O<DCc..cxo.r=x~<Dml..go U.!:<D(OOQ)C'--Q)_.r=Uttl._C Ol <:: :c ~-g ~~ ro - ~ . '(~"D~,~ "I:~L$:~:,;,. 0.... . ,,-- -Suo o.ffi ~,(:~ i ~<;Ir.l' o;::ddlJ-F 0)".0,::,(1) ;~i'!!::"-E . :,:(i5'{(lJ c::2 ~.!: <D . ..:::t::ena>D. "",,,~o 2ga>'2 1--0..0 co "0 . a> C (;)Fh ~i~ii"i""" ~ ~fl~:';m en:t:=-:S!o'ii: -'O};CL LO o ,'!aT'C.('I') =a.~:(I)-X~ ~ ht,C-:) _ ~ ::Jg-ifO 0 0. .i2:::;~ g> o C",I..._ .2 .~- "$\-0 Q) _ (1)>,00 I (01..,:,a> 0. a.:..C:~ /"" '" , Z .,. Z ~ I.. a> C :J_ .r= 0 (J) ~ oro~~ ~Q)m .~ ~i l.:; -7Q)Q)1.. _..c'O -mm.8 mQ) o ~.oQ)~ >,-('I')~..curo~..oo ~ N=~cQ)t~LOU-OIDN_X : ro'~Q)ro~Q)~-_=~c~~Q). ~cl.. __c.Q):len__Q)~>.r=~ ~2Q)-1o~enoe-B230m~-1~ro ~ >W..cm c.LO en Q)-W..c-o ~~OZI-'O~Q)ooro~~~..c~z3:c :::.. 0 ~u . LO co'" Q) c - ro - 0 U -.m Orooo mcoro~-..oroo..'O~:l mil) ~h:lQ)'O -~:l-cEc CQ)"O CDo..c ClJlI)oo=Q)oro~-..c II) &c:J~o~:Coo.o3:-ooo~c-N~ lo." Q) c '0...... -- <D CD ~-1 _E ..c Q) 0 - co .- ~m:;::;OwU..ch_WroU~3:u~wU E(1)giroQ)=~~zEE~ocgroQ) ~=oc.~~~cQ)oro~uI2..c~= ~ ~ Cl o a: D. Cl z i= a: o 0.. w 0:: c z <( Cl z i2 o I- Z o :2: z o ~ Cl E :2: -l <( I- 0: '" o J: -l <( Z :g~ ow NO:: a: <( w -l III => ~o ww >::;; Ow ZI- III III :l GI .... .... III 0 cnZ GI .... III C I: o :;:; GI ii. E o u Cl:>' I: l.l .- I: ... GI .B:l .- tT 5 GI c::c'''' """IL GI'I: Er.2 .- .... 1-11I 'C.!:! GI- ...0. .- 0. 5-<( GI'" It: 0 ..!!!Cl :81:_ U) ";: .a I:ot:: O~ca 0.1:0.. III 0 Gl2 It: III ~ :l III III GI 2 I: o :;:; III .!? ~ 2 ti III 0. E '" (ij "' E I:: o 'ai a. E Q) o ro o 0 =~Q) "_.c O)l...-' c 0)'0';" .~ is..m,tL ~5;<Ey-g C;:<o,:P "-' .gj,o:-J!:! e /;...:;';.,0 = a. " Q) E '" Z I:: o ~ a. E Q) o ro o 0 '" (ij "' :s '" "5 " Q) c: ~ Q) 1-00E _I::t:: O:a co >- == a. ;t:::JQ) OaJO ~ Q) Q) " I:: Q) fE Q) .aoQ)mC) =-0 S.S2 Q) mccnO..c: ~rolB~~ c~.e.g~ g:o.ss.2? co <0-- C CIJ == E (f).-._ c_o>.;;2i ~(ij5'~~ -escQ)O> ~~ 0 0 en 'c 1:) ~ ffi"E roQ)c=ro ..c::Q.- 0.-0 . o>J:!Ecc: Q) 0'- co ro ~ aE Soon: '" z - >- I:: <0_.0 OJ _:5~ moo'w t:"OE Q)<:: Q) Q)Q) CQ)-o Ero.Q-CDro'~ (l) .E!-.Q- 5- 0 en o.!!!:5 ::J.~ m.g-u e C 0 .B'cro 0 ~Q)_Qc _m.~c..E~ro:O (Q.~ fij::Q:';:::"oo gs ~~.c.::J c: c.- co c: 00 co Q) E l- C'CJ e. Q) (.) (,) (I) (f) 0 ~oEE~th(l)e- Q) 0 Q) 0 5,-~ ~ 8 ::!a::5 e"oo g 5.~ "01:: . I:: 0 C (0.- .2 ~ '0 0)= g> 2 c 0.__ .;:: E"O ~ ::J <D ~ 0 0'00>0 '" "5 " Q) E c: Q) Q) I- O)E',. _.~:/t::; o C';:ro Z' c~<-a. ._,~-,Q) Q':Q;;''Cl ~ Q) ::J.c 0- . .c1::Q) ._ "0 cQ)..co .Q,st::o oo.Ero 2+-'_0.. t) ~ m:~ Oc:!::: (I) C E c:::J o=o~ 'OQ)~m fij.o.g-s c=1i)u o co Q) Q) ._.c. l... E ~CIJ""Q) 0(1)0)1- E_~=_ Q):!::: 0 0 "'O.~ -O.?;> =uc-- <(comO to Z Q) E '" z I:: o :ai a. E Q) o ro o 0 Ol I:: .- c: "00 ~:p 0>" 0>2 1::- .- '" ~ c: ::J 0 0" "0 I:: '" 0> I:: :aa ~;; 0>" 0>2 1::- '1:: '" ::J I:: 08 '" "5 0,., Q) '.;E c Q) Q) 1-00E -I::t:: o:a co >.= a. :=:~Q) OaJO .... z '" (ij "' ~ '" (ij "' :s I:: 0 ~ Q) a. Q) E E Q) E '" 0 ro '" z () 0 Z "01:: - I:: 0 _2 co_~ O)~ l? 2 c 0__ 00 -i:: EU c ~Q)~o 0"00) () I:: o E QUe E I:: 0 (1)CO~ "0 -" 0)l?2 -E =0 00 ::J '" c: O~o 0>" '" "5 " Q) E I:: Q) Ol EQ) 1-1:: ___1::: 01::", ,a.1::c. __ JS! Q) 0.0 ::J :ffi Q)Q)u~ ...,;; E e u " " c. "'.- 2 t:.- '" ... Q) ~.gLB"" ;~;il[' ,')'yC:,= 0 en:J 'fie ~:p co g '6 coS..... :J ~ (1) en..e en ~~~~E E ui Q) en .g,~ Q) e 0) e -f:.a,:" "0 0 mOm,'..... .- ... --' 'o-f1t l? 1\5 (f) lit;-!(1) -I:: .... = '....i'O a. ~ Q) _coOl'co 0 O c.J:: a. .... .... 0.; ,en , 0 0. a. 'J co Z . . . . :< ~ (!) o a: a. (!) z i= a: o a. w a:: c z <I: (!) z ii1 o r- Z o ~ z o ~ (!) E ~ . ....I <I: r- n: en o J: ....I <I: z 100 o(!j Ow -~ :<13 w w > :< Ow ZI- .!!!Cl ,eC en"': cot:: o.:t::' CU ll.Cll.. III 0 Gl:;; a:: III III :l Gl ... ... <U 0 rnZ Gl ... <U C C o :0:= CIl C. E o u III CIl ... :l III <U CIl :;; C o :0:= <U Cl E :;; ... CJ <U ll. E '" (ij '" E " '" co .<: 13"- " '" "e- :8 >",0. () ",2 "'- .'" '" Ol 5 :9 0 ~;; ri:h,.:'/ 3 l>_~-g o U>---~ Q)-t::,..;.. ..... ~ 0 a5 ~ r-;S:Eg'E - 0 t.-t:: 0= co C ro >..0 c.. ~ a. :!::::JQ)_Q) oa..oa...Q '" ~ ~ 8 lJ.) .~ co:!:::: 0 Q)CI)= ~8..Q u8-J! " - '0':5 :5 a. 5":= '" en >> "- 0) co Et--;s: >. c .. ~~~5 ;.<:(915 .~.2'~5 (ijI+-'rn '" E "'<<= '" Ol", U5.g88 ~ " '" :5 0.2 c!ECti :.;: ~.Q) "S-:t::: oo"EE ~roOl =~.~ '~'~'S o'w g -~CJ)"'" 0",,,, 6.'~ 0 Q).2 ~ '<:-E I- .E ._ " E co Z '" " '" l!l .<: '" Ol ale "'.<: co- " -"'''' E"t:J~ ~SE -OOl ~B"" 'c CI);J::: ~~~ i:j T"" <:: Ol o oS '" ~ " " '" l!l .1:: ". en :Etuf-'" ~ ~ jg ~~t;~j-~ ~ ffi ffi e :>'r.E, - - !i<E,- / E "5"0 .a~~::L 2:J ~ ~'t6f -= e jg ..92 ~; ~:5 f/) T"" 00 C\IC\1T'"" -0"-- S o .Q f ~ -t; <:: " o .Q ,s " o C/) " '" .. .<: a. -0" CI) ro -.~ cLLQ)...... O.....::J~ +::00'0::1 Ow - E ~ ~::J '- (I) '0' () 20.......... c -.J a. 0 ';ro~~ em......- .~--~ o ~ 0 ~.. -<1>-,(1) :Eo-moo o (I) CD ctI Q) - ro.o a. ~ ~ if 6..!; . "'0'< ,:,'+:"> -,;::~" <-;::t: "'0)., ,.-.: e-:~"--- -:G"\ ~ '" (ij '" 5 '" o :a5 i5. E 2 o co o 0 " E co z ,,'0 !i" .8g~%J <5 ~nH~ 'C en :J Q) a... .!!?..c a. '" '" ~ "" .0 "'0 !i" 0" '" _c:::: ~ co E .2 ~ Q; rr...~ 0.. co "3 -g ~~~ ~ (; ~ ai f-;S:Eg'E '0 ~ 1ii"c 1ii ~,;g at ~ at oa.oa.o .... ~ >;" .<:~]~" "'" I t ~ ~ 1O(J) tn(l):C':- 0.. 0.. 'S 2: 2E~ lDE(f}o' rq~5 mm:5(/)D... Cf)~"O.cCf)~~.,gCf) I t-- 0) c~ t-- 0) C,;x: t--Q5 >-c 5 m >-c:J m >-0) m.::::::::..o CD co.:::::::: 0 Q) co z; ~.J::.c a. 3:.c.c c..::=:(/) .c"5"5.c..cS€..c.cN .2100"0 .Qlo 0"0 .Qlm I(/) cn.c I(/) c.c ID... . -i:j I Q) :m roo. .::.:::'- g~ ~ ~ ~ Cf)~n.:Cf)~ro.,g t-- (.) I 1'--"0:2:.::.::: >-,f >> >-2>' m co_ m co~ ro Q) ;;: .<: 1; ;;:.<: ;;: "- .g,S,-.g,"5~~ .-oro._omo Icn(LIcnD....c . . . II) II) ::;; :::JCII -- i:i III 0 Cl Ujz 0 a: . 11. Cl Gl '" Z - (ij ~ III "' C ~ 0 I: D- O 111 i 0:: c: c ii .2 Z E Qi <( 0 a. " Cl 0 E " E z 0 ro '" " U 0 Z 0 I- Z 0 :!E z 0 ~ Cl E :!E ...J ..: l- n: VI o :J: ...J <( Z 11)0 05 0111 NO:: a:<( 11I...J 10;:) :;;U 111111 >:;; 0111 ZI- ..!C) :!:!I: rn"i: I:Ot:: o ~ CO Q.1:a. II) 0 Gl::a; 0::: II) Gl ... :::J II) III CII ::a; I: o .. III OJ .. ~ ts III Q. E '" :; c: (J '" '" Q)~..... .- ~ 0 lB ~ I-:;;Eg>E -01:::-1:': o:=(lJc(IJ >'..0 a. ~ a. :!:::.::J (1)_ Q) UD.. OD.. 0 '" 1:> os: >..~ ;> cD co e Q) ~ ~ a. Q) Jg"E~Q).~ .- ro e fi 1ii E"o>"':; ~.8c~E ~ ~ '3: -0 i3 ffim..Q"O-o c.J~o(01o.. =(f.l~oro 0..= Q)"'" :: g.S fi ~ .8 t)cooffig .~! c E:i:\.. e~.Q g?.EJ9 0..:5'5 e:s ~ Q)C:oa.ca. ~ 8 a_~ 8.~ '" .:. (l)ro.s~ ~LLQ); =....:::I~ >. o"'C ::J row""" E " (J::> uCIJ.~O roO e l- e...J a. 0 ~ro(D-g .~ Q) = ro ;:--- o ~ 0 ~ .. -CD-IV) :ea.moo o U) CD ro Q)- co'oo. .= 3 a: a..~ "0' r:'" ::>.!!1 0"0 -"c: ~::> ::> 0 0-" c/)"" 00"5 ~O , '" ~ro -c: " 0 ~E "0 0)"0 .....<( '" " ro Q) c: " Q. '" .t:::Ec: .2> ctI '- ::t::Q:2 1i.i '0 ~~~ .." .. ..c ~ ..c:"O '5ro "5 co ~a.~~ O)~cn~ r--. c: r--.'I:: >. co >- (IJ (O..c: ro 0) ;: 03= I- .cQ)..cCU CJ)n. C)~ Ie Ie . . ",," o>lij "0::>- ~o_ ~~"" """ 0> 0"""1:: -""0"0 ~5c 00::> <=-,,0 _ -" 00"'- ~fE~ ';:-" -<:"'~ :;cQ) o.Q > E CI)~C::J "00- 0)"00- r'--.<((J)"5, ~.. :::1'1:: ~Cl'jQ.Q) g. -0> -& 10;; Q)..::: '_ co c: :t:a::J!!.9 Q.. '" -' J:'i"O _c: "::> 00 C/).o 0)"" r--..:5cC) ~o~.t: cuCl.lc:C 3!::C'-Ol .c:~.as 0)'-4= 10.. 5::;;.!!1,s 10 ~ ~ lL ~ gSes (J -E mW Q)::::J ~(J):J U Q) 0"0 L.... c...J'5o '0>10 <:( ~ .!: Q):g 10 ~~~~ .. - <0 I (/J S 0.000 o co Q) ro m='o'O'o.. ~.~ 5. a..~ - ::> o , :!! :; 10 - '" u " .~ D- 10 ~ . € -0 "OC: ~5"O :J.8~ c5l € -g<:il 0) g gf'~ ~(ij~;-~ co5(05 :s:::o::::o (l)',~ ..c::a en 1:5',' '~1:J ::J en :r: <( a. "I:: "0 c: ::> o ..c:J roB ......0 II)OO 00"..0, "0 Q) .. "''''''' ....- " ~,' :;:';';';,a>i;+Jiji,-i5>L.. .Jl!~::>,,~n ;t5";s' moL.. (L ''F> m' :J 00 ro Qr: ~::,., c:"O -..c . 1::' eJEQ)~OO~~ !;kQl:!2"O(lJcoE: ..c:: > J::- ',' :i .s e -g ~ E;~: o c:: c.. m ~ :J_:+!-. CI) ::J;"O en en""'t:;:.r;:: 0) 0 c Q) ,,(1):'1:;-.0> f'o..,. () co c'c,', 0> C ~ ,(G,a}...."O..:. '" ~ "--- ~ ~ C\J m N,'c E::C ~ (.) ~ :!:,,'a):;:, ;:l en ~ ~ ..c:,:~'..c''''''''''''' ::1._ L.. 0).',",":.0>,* ~ 0"0 0. ,:z:>a'(j)~~~~ ~ -'" '" '" I I...J CD ~U) ~U):c~ 0. c.. U) 5~ ~E~ ~EL..o" Se6 se6cna.. (j)~"OJ::(j).....~"O..c(j) I f'-.. II) C.:li! II) C.:li! f'-.. Q) >>'E 6 co >>'E:J ro >>Q) (IJ,=:;..c Q) ro,=:; 0 II) ro z 3J::.t:a.~J::..cc..~cn -&"5'5= -&'5€= ~N I~~BI~gBIcr c: -'" ". '" -:;; 0> l'J. co ':" ~<( 0)::2 C <<; 1ij n.: u 5 u. ~13 I ~ '~S2 CJ) >><0>> >>L.. >>3 ~~~~~~I J::.......::t::.J::-(])>> C):JL..C):J>ro I~~I<Zl5~ . . . . . . . :;: ~ C1 o cr: Q. C1 z i= cr: o Q. W c:: C Z <l: C1 z ii2 o I- Z o ~ z o i= <l: C1 E ~ . ...J <l: l- lL II) o :I: ...J <l: z 11)0 0(5 Ow tI~ :;:G Ww >:;: Ow Z~ Ul Ul ~ Q) .... .... Cll 0 iiSz Q) .... Cll C c o :;:; Q) C. E o u Cl>' C <.l .- C ... Q) .s~ .- C" g Q) ~~1t /'1 -''\'(I)\C E.!:! .- ... I-Cll "C.~ \ Q)- ...c- .- C- 6-<1: Q)'" l:t: 0 ~Cl ,ec r,n"i: C 0 o ~ ca C-CD.. Ul 0 Q):!!! l:t: Ul Q) ... ~ Ul Cll Gl :!!! c o i Cl E :!!! ~ Cll C- E ""w CD .!Q a. "O_tO .~ ~~ .:::.:: L.."C > 5:0--00 co .. c ro ,.c:"'o::Jc ""0<<:(00) Q) 0..0.- !tll:1i5'" ~gm~ :::s 0..,;"0 ro omc'::' CI) e> ro E ~~-g.a ~s.5~ ~~.o_Q> .c:::.:::.:::51o... 0)0..,;::J"'O :i:~~~ .c "5 '- 0"0 I :J (f) c o Q)CO .s r--. .:::t:.'C (J) >'~:J 3: ~ 5 ~<CEo>~ro~ .!:ro.:.:::l'--u:2.:.::: $9 .!2'[L ro >.2>' ro .c:r: Q) co....... ro IV m-U)a.::::J=3:a. ~-go "..c'S-i:..c c: m o....J~ .2>0 COo ro::2:O:::jCLIOOQ....o . . c o :m c. E " o 1;; o 0 "::E 0) c: Ol.~ .2 .S::J 1:5 5u......::J :=:5~~ c O'-C ooeo :;: 0 a. 0 to -s --~ u-:'iJj:j}Q ~:;~K-c c Q)'hcO' CD QL 1-5: E g>:E ::OJ:Qi:~FE-'~ ::-'~:ig;:g. ~ at oa.oa.o m '" ~~g (1)0:;:::; :=:t::~ ~~!E ~ cD ~ <5 .0'0 a. t) '- 0 en Q) a....... Q).: Q)c..cO -",0- -- >.o~ I::ro-.... 03;:"00 23 ~ ~~ ~.I:: ..Q.Q E"O g!::C Q) ctl Q)::J >Q)uG... e-g-g1? 0.(3 0 +-' .E.!: a:: '0 "" !-'- en 10 ~ ~'t ~ >.00:::;) ctlw;E ~U)::Ja coOu.... o....J-o ~ :J "0 Ol1O 9 Q) c "0- .~~~~ o .....0 l... .. =ID_"'!"23 .Eg-~~~ Q) = '0".0 a. .:: -~ 5. 6..s '" m ., ~ Q) E to Z CD 1i) (j) 0 0 ~~~ (l):g :gO) ..c~..c"Oo~ ~r;, 'Sro'S~i:jo "CO ~D- ~o::~; ~~ Q)~0>2O::~ O::.Q> r-- c 1""--;:: co:!: >"ID>.ro.:gCt::: :=::0 (\J..c m o)"C s: ~ s: ro ~-3"C ~:;:5 -au.. -a:2. '- 1:' ro '- ro :::I .__.__ rooo rooo IoIo:2.u..o::::2.O:::u> . . . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ . (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I I -16~05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 38 ! mi1~ ~i,":^j.:-~-:.~~~,'':,-t~:1f:~k~~~,>~~~~~~,~~~;~~:~:''~:,;;:~J~~_:~iiJtF~E.~-:"~ jj~L:J)::'11,i~L~~~~_.i.~~-;{;.,.;,.' ,;_;~~~,;..;';;i~:;~ii~ -:-: ,~_,;;;-~-~;~t:~=,2:ai:~?J:~~~~~~l . PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462) . WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959- 080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and WHEREAS, 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; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project; and . WHEREAS, on April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and WHEREAS, a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Aeso GP.DOC Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 8, 2005; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16, 2005, 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; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_ recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the Application makes the following findings: A. The amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the . adopted General Plan. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)," and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns (Goal 8)." The Project provides a regional use that is needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general population. The Project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The Project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a State highway. The Project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The Project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The Project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law . and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa GP.DOC . . . B. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding area. The amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The Project allowed by the amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the pr,!ject site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the State highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the State highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the State highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than v.. mile from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The nature of the Project allowed by the amendment is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Project is a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the Project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The Project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. D. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa GP .DOC Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission for the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to the .. Land Use Element of the General Plan to remove the eight (8) subject parcels of the Project from the Z2 Overlay designation and corresponding height restriction for the site located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080- 004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, as shown on attached Exhibit "A". Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November 2005. ATTEST: David Mathewson, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of November 2005 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary . w R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso GP .DOC . . EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_ (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc ~~~~:.:~~i~l~~~~~~~~:t:;.~':;';~j;~i~t~::~j~~ s.c,'~~~ih,~~~,:~~<~;.-~~~/jtiL~~~~::~;:~~~::::t-:~;::;;}&~~g[--- :':~:;-~~=--~-g~~;~f~ . . . RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural FindinQs. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.(UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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. C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that a Focused 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. Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc F. A Draft Focused 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 8, 2005. G. The Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16, 2005, 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; and H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_ 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. 05-_ , recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment. J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 22, 2005, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment. K. 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. 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. FindinQs. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings: .' R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa GP.doc . . . A. The amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)," and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns (Goal 8)." The Project provides a regional use that is needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general population. The Project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The Project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The Project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the Project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The Project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The Project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). B. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding area. The amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The Project allowed by the amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the Project site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than '14 mile from the Project site. The Project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa GP.doc any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and . the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The nature of the Project allowed by the amendment is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Project is a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the Project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The Project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. D. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels. Section 3. Amendments to the General Plan Text. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Element of the General Plan to remove eight subject parcels from the Z "Future Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction for a site located on the north side Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, generally known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959- 080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (Amending Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as shown on Exhibit A, Existing General Plan; Exhibit B Proposed General Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.) . Section 4. Severabilitv. 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. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc . . . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November, 2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS Susan Jones, MMC City Clerk R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regionat Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa GP .doc . . . EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_ (EXISTING GENERAL PLAN) R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc . . . At L A N o u S E Figure LU-4 Specific Plan Areas CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Approved Specific Plans sp- 1 Roripaugh Hilts SP- 2 Rancho Highlands SP- 3 Margarita Village SP- 4 Paloma!Paseo Del Sol SP- 5 Old Town SP- 6 Campos Verdes SP- 7 Temecula Regional Center SP- 8 WestsideNiltages at Old Town SP- 9 Redhawk SP-10 Vail Ranch SP-11 Roripaugh Ranch SP-12 Wolf Creek SP-13 Harveslon PD0-4 Temecula Creek Village PDO-5 Rancho Pueblo # 106 Dutdl Village # 184 Rancho Bella Vista # 213 1Ninchester PropertiesfSilvemawk # 265 Borel Airpark # 284 Quinta 00 lego # 286 Winchester 1800 # 238 Crown Valley Village # 313 Morgan Hill Future Specific Plans Y Specific Plan Area Y Z Specific Plan Area Z " I' ~ " 9> o\'l.€.S OS~~ cJoI.l-~C '6 ~ '" L '{ '5 u> C"> o 'I on C"> '" ~ \ ......NT~INES \JI/>.::>r" Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary _ PlamingArea Source: TelOOrula GIS andCotton.r&idgesJAssociates W*EO S 250 I---i 500 I Feet I---i 0", '1"t 1"O\..P-fl,O O€.pOR ""~"",,, ",€A L '> 'C g 'b 1/, ~ ~ " LOMA UNOA RO c o F C ENE R A L P LAN T Y Land Use Exhibit A - Existing TEMECULA III 28 . . . EXHIBIT B CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_ (PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN) A:\City Council AgendA Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc . . . 4& L A N o u S E Figure LU-4 Specific Plan Areas CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Approved Specific Plans sp- 1 Roripaugh Hills SP- 2 Rancho Highlands SP- 3 Margarita Village SP. 4 PalomalPaseo Del Sol SP- 5 Old Town SP- 6 Campos Verdes SP- 7 Temecula Regional Center SP. 8 VVestsideMllages al Old Town SP- 9 RedhaWk SP-10 Vail Ranch SP-11 ROlipaugh Ranch SP-12 Wolf Creek SP-13 HarvestOll PDO-4 Temecula Creek Village PO()..5 Rancho Pueblo # 106 Dutch Village # 184 Rancho Bella Vista # 213 Vv'inchesler propertieslSilverhawk # 265 Borel Airpark # 284 Quinta Do Lago # 286 Wndlesler 1800 # 238 Cw.vn Valley Village #313 Morgan Hill Future Specific Plans Y SpecifIC Plan Area Y Z SpecifIC Plan Area Z ~ 'P; " '$ """~s cJ'-U-E.\..-oS .....:TAINES \I\"S~~ Temec:ula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary _ PlaMingArea Source: TemeQJtll GIS and CotloolBridgeslAssociales w4EO S 250 500 I Feet I--t I--t 0" ~~ <. :> 'G (1 'b '"' '$ %. ~ LOM/o. UNOA RD C o F G ENE ~ A L r LAN T Y Land Use Exhibit B - Proposed TEMECULA I.U23 . ATTACHMENT NO.4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ . (ZONE CHANGE) . I lI:;a~::~~~~~2~~~~'"~:_-':i.l~j;:1i*~~.....;:~~:~,q::~;tl~E-~.J;i~1;g;;;-,-;;~i2~;~~~;:;;,:-'~!:~:L:,:':;~tzjai~~a~;~~~"~~~~~~~p~ R:\C U P\2004\D4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc 39 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD" AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959- 080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 WA05- 0302) . WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known ai? Assessors Parcel No(s). 959- 080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and WHEREAS, 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; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and . . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso Zone Ord.DOC WHEREAS, a Draft Focused 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 8, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16, 2005, 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; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_ recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA04-0462 hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land . Use Map. The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan Amendment, the site is physically suitable for the. type of uses that will occur in this area, and the proposed zone change would further the City's long-term economic development goals. B. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the diversity of uses desired in the General plan and will create a balanced community with additional public services available to the community. Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 05-_ changing the zoning designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), adopt sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 including the PDO text and development standards in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, and change the official Zoning Map to show the boundaries of the proposed PDO-9 in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regionat Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Aeso Zone Ord.DOC . . . Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 2005. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby that the PC Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of November, 2005, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso Zone Ord.DOC ~ . EXHIBIT A PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 05_ . (ZONE CHANGE) . i ! I ~:-,~:" ~_.~. ".':.'.'-' .": .",c,~~)8~f~,u~~,i~:~;~df:~~~~.~_~?~g?:~\1:1,_~2.0. ,~.\~~~..g. ~~~~ Hgs' ,ital\~~~~~L~~~~.:~=po~~~n.d...R~SOS.. \..C. C. .. Z~g,,;~i~,;c"c,,: c:.: ....~".,c.",.,,'''Tc:CI''''''j~ .iftZ::="n:~~~=~'-~~'~~~--'-~':,:,J~~<'"':~:::::~~ ' -, f_ -j=~"--<(-:""'~~~~,~iUi~'""'''''''''~ fii(~~".~-"_.-~"~;"~"""-~-~":~:~iI . . . ORDINANCE NO. 05-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206, TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080- 004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-0302) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural FindinQs. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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. C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that a Focused 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 Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc F. A Draft Focused 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 8, 2005. G. The Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16, 2005, 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; and H. 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. 05-_ 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. 2005-, recommending that the City Council approve a Zone Change to amend the land use designation from Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206, including the PDO text and development standards for property generally located north of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959- 080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. . J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 22, 2005 and , 2005 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment. K. 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. 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc . . . reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. L. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use designation for the General Plan and the related General Plan text amendment. The PDO text, as proposed is also consistent with the General Plan and related General Plan Amendment M. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Zone ChanQe. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula by changing the zoning designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70 feet west of Margarita Road, and specifically known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959- 080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (Amending the official Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit A, Existing Zoning; Exhibit B Proposed Zoning attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.). Section 3. Zone Text Amendment. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adds Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 to read as follows: "TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT 17.22.200 TITLE. Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 shall be known as "PDO-9" (Temecula Hospital Planned Overlay District). 17.22.202 PURPOSE AND INTENT. The Temecula Hospital planned development overlay district is intended to provide for design flexibility with regards to the building height of hospital projects. Other aspects of this PDO will be consistent with the land use designations that are described in the land use element of the Temecula general plan. 17.22.204 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES. Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.206, the following rules and regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area: 1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to any development in a Professional Office zoning district that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc 2. The Citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is . deemed complete. 3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in effect at the time the application is deemed complete. 4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time the application is deemed complete. 17.22.206 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The development standards set forth in Chapter 17.08 apply to this PDO with the exception of the following modification to allowable building heights. The maximum allowable building heights, as defined in Chapter 17.34 for hospital buildings in the Temecula Hospital PDO District shall be limited as follows: No more than 30% of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this PDO, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines the roof area." Section 4. Severabilitv. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not . affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of ,2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 05-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of November, 2005 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc . . . EXHIBIT A PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.05-_ EXISTING ZONING R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc . .~ . Zoning _ t.nsicfe Residenlial (HR) D Very low Densily Residential (Vl) _lawwDensilyResidenllal(l.1) _lowDensilyResidential(l-2) D low Mediu-n Density Residential (LM) _ Medium Density Residential (M) _H\tloensily Residential (H) _ Rural Residential (RR) _ NeilttborhoodCommercial (NC) _ COmm\ll"lity Commercial (Ce) _ IighwayITourist Commercial (HT) _ Service commercial (SC) . Professional Ollioe (PO) _ BusineS$ Part (BP) Dlighllndustrial(U) o Public Institutional (PI) _ Open Space (OS) _ Public Pari< & Recraalion (PR) _ ConseIValion (OS-C) ~ Planned Development Overlay _SpecilicPlan(Sp)Proposed gSpecificPlanApproved [gTribalTrust(TT) . Zone Change Exhibit A - Existing . . . EXHIBIT B PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.05-_ PROPOSED ZONING R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc . Zoning _HlsideResidential(HR) D Very LowDeoslty Residential (VL) _ Low Density Residenlial(l-1) _low Density Residential (L-2) o low Medium Density Residential (LM) _ Medium Density Residential (M) _ I-igh Density Residential (H) . Rural Residential (RR) _ Neighborhood Coll'l1lercial (NC) _ COrrmtrlity Commercial (CC) _ I-ighwayITourist Commercial (HT) _ Service Commercial (SC) .professfonaIOflice(PO) g Business Park (BP) C]Lightlndustrial{U) DPubliclnStilUtional(PI) 11II) Open Space (OS) _ Public Park & Recreation (PR) _ COnsefVation (Os.c) IT] Planned Development Ovel1ay _Spec.ificPlan (SPl Proposed ~SpacilicPlanApproved ~TribaITrus1(TT) . . ~ LM ~n~{:;S-:::---- OS-~t"':: ~C"'\;.\..€;-\: Zone Change Exhibit B - Proposed . ATTACHMENT NO.5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ . (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) . R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 1 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc 40 li'ii}~~~7;;;:j.t;~~>:~'~~~-~:;';-.~;:~"'~_:'~~~~;~",~~'~~~~7~;f~:~-~~~-~~;~;~;-0-';.~~-~~___~:.::'g_:~;~iij~~~~i~~~1ti;~@"~~-;~i~~;ji'~/~~:::~J;,?-~a~ . PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES," LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001 THROUGH 959- 080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04- 0463) . WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959- 080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, 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; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso DP CUP.DOC WHEREAS, a Draft Focused 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 8, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16, 2005, 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; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_ recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of . a Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns; (Goal 8)." The proposed Project provides a regional use that is needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general population. The proposed Project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The Project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The Project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the Project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The Project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso DP CUP.DOC . . . structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The Project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the Project site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than 14 mile from the Project site. The Project is a conditionally permitted use as it has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in a manner that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The Project has been reviewed and it is determined that the Project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The Project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the Project site and the adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso DP CUP.DOC affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features . prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed Project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed Project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels. Section 3. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.01 O.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: . A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the Project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined that the Project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the General Plan. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the Project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the Project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes. Section 4. Recommendation of Conditional Approval. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission, hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan for the Project, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa DP CUP.DOC . . . Margarita Road subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 2005. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of November, 2005, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso DP CU P .DOC . EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ . (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc 1 i ,__ I 1E~~:~~~g"-?}iE~~~~:,~~t~=:~~4:.':~1-",'~~~ -:~l-~-}l;;:::::;;" > "';'{/"~-:~_"b_' ;,;",-:__~;.~~~;f~i.~~\~~~~;1t;,:j~~m~::tit~~~jt~_ . . . RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0463) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findinqs. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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. C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc 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 Focused . Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Focused 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 8, 2005. G. The Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16, 2005, 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. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_ 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. 05-_, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project. J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 22, . 2005, 2005 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment. K. 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. 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\HospitaJ Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc . . . L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. FindinQs. The City Council hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1 )" "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns. (Goal 8)" The proposed project provides a regional use that needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa DP CUP .doc the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than v.. from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also provides. amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Reglonal Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP .doc . . . . . Section 3. FindinQs. The City Council hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and 'with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the General Plan. S. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes. Section 4. Conditional Approval. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad and Development Plan to construct 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959- 080-001 through, 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 as set forth in Application No. PA04-063, subject to the specific conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit S, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November, 2005 Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk . [SEAL] R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 05- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc . . . . . . EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~ R:\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc I . . . EXHIBIT A . CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit establishing a 320-bed hospital facility approximately 408,160 square feet and a helipad within a related Development Plan (PA04- 0463) located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 DIF: Office TUMF: Service Commercial/Office MSHCP: Commercial Approval Date: November 22, 2005 Expiration Date: November 22, 2007 R:\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaI\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Planning Department . 1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 2. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date: otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 3. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. . 4. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated June 30, 2004, (attached) on file with the Planning Department, unless superceded by these conditions of approval. 5. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 6. The flight path for all helicopter traffic arriving and departing the project site shall be limited to the Highway 79 South corridor and commercial areas, unless it is determined unsafe due to weather conditions. Flights over residential areas shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 7. The applicant shall pursue agreements with all emergency service providers stating that emergency vehicles shall turn off sirens no less than one quarter of a mile from the project site. 8. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Hospital and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program as attached. . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 3 . . . Police Department 9. All exterior lighting surrounding the project site should be energy-saving and minimized after 11 :00 PM to comply with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements. 10. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. 11. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 12. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings shall be removed or painted over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Departrnent immediately so a report can be taken. 13. Upon completion of construction, the interior of this facility shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company, to notify the police department immediately of any intrusion. All multi-tenant buildings located within the center should have their own alarm system. 14. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 15. Any public telephones located on the exterior of this facility should be placed in a well- lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of this facility. WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Planning Department 16. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty- Eight Dollars ($914.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environrnental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). 17. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\1 12205\Regional Hospilal\Hospilal Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 4 PRIOR TO SUBMITTING HOSPITAL PLANS TO THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF STATEWIDE HEALTH AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (OSHPOD) . Planning Department 18. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the Aviation Division of Caltrans and the Federal Aviation Administration, if required, to operate the proposed helipad. All construction and operational requirements of Caltrans and the Federal Aviation Administration shall be complied with. The applicant shall provide a copy of these agencies approval documents to the Planning Director within 30 days of their approval action. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature Date Applicant Printed Name . . R\CilY Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 5 . . . EXHIBIT B DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:\Cily COllncil Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 6 . . . EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Development Plan) Project Description: A Development Plan to construct a 320-bed hospital facility, approximately 408,160 square feet in size, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001. through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 DIF: Office TUMF: Service Commercial/Office MSHCP: Commercial Approval Date: November 22, 2005 Expiration Date: November 22, 2007 R:\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaI\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 7 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Planning Department . 1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall prornptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 2. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. 3. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as attached. 4. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. . 5. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 6. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan, contained on file with the Planning Department. 7. This Development Plan may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.05.010 of the City's Development Code. 8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan elevations and landscape plans contained on file with the Planning Departrnent. 9. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific iterns, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, rnaterial, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital SlaffReport and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 8 . . . Material Stucco Color NO.1: Stucco Color NO.2: Tile Base: Aluminum Panel: Ceramic Roof Tile: Tinted Glass: Window Frame: Color Senergy, Parchment, # 342 Senergy, Walden, # 3104 Daltile, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red CS51 Cent ria, 9910 L T Seawolf Monier Lifetile, Terra Cotta Flashed Viracon, Bronze VE 4-2M Kawneer, Medium Bronze Kynar 500 Fluorocarbon 10. The condition of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staff prior to approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish, technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 11. All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A 3' clear zone shall be provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities shall not look like an after-thought. Planting beds shall be designed around utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and the applicant shall insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 12. The applicant shall insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities, adjacent site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines. 13. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be submitted for review and approval for the project site. 14. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 15. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved (Conceptual Landscape Plan) contained on file with the Planning Department. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 16. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape Design) are required to be met. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 9 Police Department 17. Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department immediately so a report can be taken. . 18. Crime Prevention: Any business desiring a business security sUNey of their location can contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department. 19. Public Telephones: Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building should be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the building. 20. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at a height of no more than three feet (3') or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows. a. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 21. Lighting: All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements. . All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. Building Department 22. 23. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 24. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays Community Services Department 25. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. . R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Reporl and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 10 . . . 26. All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a regular solid waste container. 27. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways, perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting. 28. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. Fire Department 29. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A). 30. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B). 31. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. On site fire hydrants are required for this project (CFC 903.2). 32. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2). 33. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105). 34. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. This condition only applies if any manual or electronic gate is proposed or conditioned (CFC 902.4). R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital SlaffReport and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc II 35. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the City; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II-E). . Public Works Department 36. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 37. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 38. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 39. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or property owner. 40. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 41. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-inlright-ouVleft-in movements. . WITHIN 48 (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Planning Department Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 42. The applicanVdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty- Eight Dollars ($914.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicanVdeveloper has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). 43. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. . R:\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\11220S\Regional HospitaI\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 12 . . . WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: Planning Department 44. The applicant shall submit seven complete sets of final approved plans to the Planning Department with the following revisions shown on the plans. Planning staff will stamp these plans as approved for distribution to each department and the applicant. 45. The Landscape plan shall be revised as follows: a. The applicant shall provide a vines on the screening wall at the loading dock area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. b. The landscape plan shall provide shrubs, vines and/or other acceptable screening methods to screen the oxygen storage container in the loading dock area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show final color and finish details for all decorative hardscape throughout the project site. Decorative hardscape shall be provided at all primary building entrances and outdoor gathering areas (including the hospital, medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center). d. A minimum of one broad canopy type tree shall be provided per every 4 parking spaces. The tree shall be provided in close proximity to the parking spaces it is to shade. e. One landscape finger shall be provided per 10 parking spaces. The interior finger planting width shall be a minimum of 5' wide with the length equal to the adjoining parking space. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5' width. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree with surrounding groundcover or shrubs or both. The grading plans shall be revised as necessary to reflect this requirement. 46. The elevations for all buildings shall be revised in a manner that all exterior ladders are sQreened from the public view of Highway 79 South. 47. The applicant shall submit a separate plan, entitled outdoor furniture detail plan, showing details of all outdoor furniture, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Outdoor furniture shall be decorative and of high quality appearance. 48. The applicant shall provide a detailed elevation drawing of the water and boulder feature at the main entrance, near the porte-cochere. Said feature shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. 49. The applicant shall submit cross section verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 50. The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and structures, excluding trash enclosures. 51. Trash enclosures shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and elevations and shall comply with the following: R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Rcgional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 13 a. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. All trash enclosures shall blend with the architecture of the overall center and include a decorative roof type feature as approved by the Director of Planning. Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide shrubs and wall vines on 3 sides of enclosures as required to provide screening. . b. c. 52. The elevations shall be revised to show decorative lighting fixtures at the primary entry of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of. Planning. Details of all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting and wall mounted lighting shall be provided on the plans. 53. The Applicant shall revise the site plan and provide a detailed elevation drawing to show a decorative fence no less than four feet in height around the helipad, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Said fence shall be constructed in a manner that deflects horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface of the area remain obstruction free, per Section 171 O.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT Planning Department 54. A note on the grading plans shall be provided and shall read as follows: If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural . resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. 55. A qualified paleontologisVarchaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for ,consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologisV archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologisVarchaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall . provide written verification that services for on-site professional archaeological and R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaI\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 14 . 56. 57. 58. 59. . paleontological monitoring has been contracted during all phases of earthmoving activities. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreemenl/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. The agreemenVtreatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreemenVtreatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre-construction agreemenVtreatment plan to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 60. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the. Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 61. The applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. A copy of the signed document shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 62. . The grading plan shall be revised to include the following: a. Earth berms as required along the northern property lines and along Highway 79 South as discussed in these conditions of approval. b. A note on the plans indicating all areas not proposed for development within 100 days shall be tufted, seeded and irrigated for soil and dust erosion. c. Show the 5-foot landscape dimension for all parking islands, including the Hoot concrete landing strip (7 feet total width). One parking island is required per ten (10) parking spaces. R\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 15 Public Works Department . 63. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. 64. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 65. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 66. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 67. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction. . 68. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 69. NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction-phase and post- construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction- phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction Activities. Post-construction measures shall be required of all Priority Development Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include a combination of structural and non-structural onsite source and treatment control BMPs to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff year-round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction-phase and post-construction BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term maintenance of all structural post-construction BMPs. . R:\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 16 . . . 70. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 71. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 72. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 73. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off- site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 74. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 75. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone X. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Developer shall design the following features into the approved construction plans, or submit the appropriate information as required below. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning Department 76. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 77. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved conceptual landscape plans, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospiral\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 17 78. The final construction landscape plan shall include the following: a. A calculation indicating the percentage of the site that is to be landscaped shall be provided on the construction landscape plans. The applicant shall insure that minimum required code percentages for landscaping are provided to meet the specific zone requirements. The applicant shall field verify adjacent existing street plantings and coordinate proposed plantings to be compatible as approved by the Director of Planning. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Street trees shall be provided along all streets at the rate of one per every 30' of street frontage. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily tufted, seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. A note on the grading plan and landscape plan shall be provided. A minimum 5' width planting area shall be provided at the ends of all parking rows. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5' width. The planter length shall be equal to the adjoining parking space. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground covers. Accent trees (minimum 36" box size) shall be installed at entries to parking areas in order to define the entry and provide a focal point. Indian Tribe, Faurei varieties shall be provided for Crape Myrtle. Additional trees shall be added on the north, east and west sides of building MOB #2 as approved by the Director of Planning. A combination of large (no less than 24-inch box) Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees (or other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern perimeter of the project to screen off-site views of the development as approved by the Director of Planning. g. h. i. j. a. Consistency Check fee shall be paid (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal of construction plans). One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. One (1) copy of an agronomic soils report. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. . b. c. d. e. f. b. c. . d. e. f. . R:\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospilal Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 18 . . . A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent to the residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24" and 36" box) screen trees to screen the view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare from the project site, subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A cross section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans verifying the buffer area. I. The landscaped area along Highway 79 South shall include a meandering berm with large shrubs to provide additional screening of the parking lot. The applicant shall provide a combination of shrub plantings and earth berms that can be maintained at a minimum height of 3' around all parking areas to screen parking from off-site views. k. m. All areas not designed for buildings, parking, driveways or other useable features shall be landscaped, unless approved by the Director of Planning. The area along the eastern property line, adjacent to the access driveway shall be landscaped, unless it is determined critical habitat not to be disturbed. 79. The final construction plans shall include a photometrics plan showing foot-candle illumination in the parking lot, driveways, drive aisles, pedestrian paths of travel and building entrances. A minimum of one-footcandle illumination shall be maintained throughout the site and a minimum of two foot-candle illumination shall be provided at primary building entrances. 80. The final construction plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, be directed down and fully shielded. Lighting onto adjacent properties shall be limited to the greatest extent possible. 81. Final Construction plans shall provide decorative lighting fixtures shall be provided at the primary entry of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Final construction plans shall provide details of all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting, parking lot lighting and wall mounted lighting. 82. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan for the helipad facility. 83. The split rail fencing for the equestrian trail proposed along the northern property lines, adjacent to the residences shall be extended from the current location to the western edge of the property line. Said fence shall be a continuous fence beginning from the driveway at DePortola to the western property line. 84. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 85. All exterior wall mounted ladders (for all buildings) shall be located in a manner that they are not visible from Highway 79 South. Public Works Department 86. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 19 87. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public . Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 88. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RNV) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Improve De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' . RNV) to include installation of pavement, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap a. The traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way shall be modified to allow a full movement intersection. 89. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Dona Lynora (66' RNV) to include the installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) b. Private 28 foot wide ingress/egress road to include installation of paving and curb per the approved site plan. 90. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. Storm drain facilities. . b. R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospitul Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 20 . . . c. Sewer and domestic water systems. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines. d. 91. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 92. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 93. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 94. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 95. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Building Department The Conditions of Approval herein (Building Department) are not applicable to the projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California OSHPD. These conditions are applicable to the construction documents for projects, specifically the medical office buildings that are within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department. 96. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code 2005 Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 97. A complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 98. A receipt or clearance letter frorn the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 99. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Reporl and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 21 100. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April . 1,1998.) 101. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 102. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 103. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 104. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 105. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 106. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 107. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. 108. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Community Services Department . 109. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Fire Department 110. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 111. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1). PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE I - (A 170-bed hospital with 80,000 square feet of medical office space), THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS . OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospilal Slaff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 22 Public Works Department . 112. Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. . 113. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works a. Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RNV) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). i. Westbound a) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long b) Provide three (3) thru lanes c) Provide one(1) left turn lane ii. Eastbound a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes b) Provide two (2) thru lanes and c) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane Dona Lynora (66' RNV) i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South i. Signal modification ii. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle b. c. iii. Southbound (exiting site) a) Provide tWo (2) left turn lanes b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right'turn lane iv. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide d. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' RNV) i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Provide a 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection to De Portola Road e. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) i. Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap. . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Reporl and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 23 Community Services Department 114. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting which ever . occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of arterial street lighting on Hwy 79 South into the TCSD maintenance program. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE COMPLETED Fire Department 115. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 116. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4). PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE II - (Expand to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space), THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED Public Works Department . 117. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of T emecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works a. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) include dedication of full-width street right-of- way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER Planning Department 118. The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of each building for Planning Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. Building Department 119. Developments with multi-tenant buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 24 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY . Planning Department 120. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 121. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit. 122. Performance securities (Maintenance bond), in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas and the Right-of-Way for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 123. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined the initial study, under cultural resources. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. . Police Department 124. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 125. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. Fire Department 126. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) 127. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 128. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1). . 129. This development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1). R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 25 130. Blue Reflective Markers shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 131. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existil'lg buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 901.4.4). 132. Based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9). 133. Based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10). 134. All locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC sec 902). 135. A "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser door (CFC 902.4). 136. The applicant shall prepare .and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. PHASE J - a 170-bed hospital with 80,000 square foot medical office space Public Works Department 137. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase I, the following improvements shall be constructed and operational: a. Highway 79 South i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way ii. Roadway improvements a) Westbound (i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long (ii) Provide three (3) thru lanes (iii) Provide one(1) left turn lane b) Eastbound (i) Provide two (2) left turn lanes ,. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 26 . . . . (ii) Provide two (2) thru lanes and (iii) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane Main Entry/Country Glen Way i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle ii. Southbound (exiting site) a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide c. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88'. R/W) i. 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection from project site to De Portola Road b. . ii. Roadway improvements d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap e. Dona Lynora (66' R/W) i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement PHASE I( - Expand to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space. Public Works Department 138. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase II, the following improvements shall be constructed and operational: a. Dartolo Road (Principal Collector - 78') i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road 139. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 140. All public improvements, including traffic signal modification, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Departrnent of Public Works. . 141. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospilal SlaffReport and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 27 OUTSIDE AGENCIES 142. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 7, 2004 from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. 143. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 24, 2004 from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 144. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 21, 2004 from the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). 145. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 12, 2004 from the Rancho California Water District. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc 28 . . . ~~ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH . July 7, 2004 ffillC ;~ II I';] I,~ ~ . III JL::.. '" ::J ~~04 " ! i...I City of Temecula Planning Department P,O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Dan Long By = RE: Plot Plan No. P A04-0462 & P A04-0463 Dear Mr. Long: Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 to construct Temecula Regional Hospital and has no objections. Water arid sewer services should be available in this area, although we have not hi receipt of any information concerning those services. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE REQUIRED: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. . b) Any food establishments, (including vending machines), shall require three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330. c) Any hazardous materials handling or storage shall require a clearance letter from the Department ofEnvironmentaI Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955- 5055) Sincerely, Sam Martinez, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials . .ocal Enforcement Agency' P.O. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502.1280 . (909) 955.8982 . FAX (909) 781.9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floo, Riverside, CA 92501 .and Use and Water Engineering' P.O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502.1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Sbeet, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 "r:U'-l~J.'1 U. fYU....LU..\.lYJ.0 General Manager-Chief Engineer 51180.1 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX City ofTemecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: ~ \..o.Jq Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTR AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST U I~C~ ~~ ~o:[~ By Re: tA o'i ~()'tl.> 'l. ,*-. pA- Ot-04"'3 The District does not nonnally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated .cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard re~rts for such cases. Disliict comments/recommendations for' such cases are normally limited to items of s~fic Interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood contro) al)d drainage facilities which. could be conslder!l? a !ogical componen.t .or e1<lensio'1 of a master plan systel!', and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, . information of a general nature IS provided. .. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety.or any other such Issue: . This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional Interest proposed. -X- This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check' and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. . . . This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be conSidered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District woulil consider accepting ownership of sUCh taa/Ities on WIluen request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and ins~ion will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project is located within the limits of the Districfs Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees Should be paid by cashier's check or money order only to tfie Flood Control District prior to issuance of building or grading permitSI whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the.actua permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may reguire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESl I>ermit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the . City has determined thlltthe project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If thi~ project inv,?lves a Fede~1 Emergen9' Managem~nt Agency (FEMAl mapped f1<>9d plain,.then the City should reqUire .1fIe applicant to proVIde all studies calculations, plans and. other lIiformation regUlred to meel FEMA requirements, and should further require thai the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this proje~ the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement frOm the California Department OJ Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or. written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certilication may be required from the local Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of t~e Corps 404 permit. )( /tfJ ~1O.Jr- l'P/4..l,IT Smt-l,L ~~ - D~11........J€t> fD(2..,....)-r ,,-loti-I'- \'J1'T1+lN I~ l>\>1V-4 C.T f-\~tt1-W- ""I<'( ,(t-- ~ '1"'1+ Dll;.T1l-\ Go, ~ L.11l RS. "'~MJ!!.c.V\l.-,O. q~,\,- l.-{rJt:-I c:AM Very truly yours, ~4 ARTURO DIAZ Senior Civil Engineer Date: ,7l/./Y.21 :JaJ-( . . . . . . ,- - July 21,2004 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Slreel P.O. Box 59968 Riverside. CA 92517.1968' Phone: (909) 565-5000 Fax: (909) 565-5001 Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner Planning Dept., City of Temecula . P.O. Box 9033 Temecula. CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: P04-o462 and PA04-o463 - Temecula Hospital- Comments from RTA Dear Mr: Long: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,000 sq ft medical complex at Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's intemal Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility options for this project. To encourage and enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTA recommends the site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features: . A paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant transit bus stop with a 220 ft-Iong tumout configura- tion capable of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed along the N side of SR 79, just west of the primary hospital entrance. The bus stop should incorporate a paved passenger waiting area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters. .. Information note: Sufficient right-of-way appears available for this tumout without significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure installations. .RTA staff is also recommending designation on the plans of an additional specified clear path of travel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital building. . RTA staff also advises that the project proponents work with the City to install two new passenger shelters at the new bus stop that are complimentary to the hospital's design and architectural themes. RTA requests these recommendations be made conditions of approval for PA 04-0462 and PA04-0463. If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at (909) 565-5164 or contact me online at mmccov<Ulriversidetransit.com. Si"i::W~ Michael McCoy Senior Planner F:ldatalPlanninglMikeMlWordlDev ReviewlTemeculal2004lRTA Llrhd - Temec Hosp.doc 'l_~ -~ RlvenIde 1l'ansit Agenq July 21,2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To: Anne Palatino, Director of Planning Michael McCoy, Senior Planner ~ City of Temecula. Cases PA04..()462 & "()463: Plot Plan review and CUP for 535,000 sq ft of hospital and medical-related facilities, N of State Route (SR) 79 and W of Margarita Rd; Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Comments Bus routes involved: Existing Route 24 and future bus routes From: Subject: Summary: Universal Health Care Services Inc proposes a site plan and conditional use permit for the Temecula Hospital project, 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35 now vacant acres Y. mile west of the SR79-Margarita Rd Intersection in a rapidly expanding commercial district of Temecula. This will be the first full-facility medical Institution in Southwest Riverside County and will be a distinct asset to the community, challenging planners and engineers to provide a robust suite of mobility options for access to it The project includes the following components: · 176-bed, 6-story hospital building, including Emergency admittance · A 5-story expansion of the hospital · Two multi-story medical office buildings · Cancer center · Fitness center · 1280 parking spaces . The site plan's perimeter and interior circulation patterns are very good, with primary access provided directly off a signalized intersection at SR 79 and Country Glen Wy. The hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drive-thru loop suitable for van- pools, paratransit and most private vehicles. Several ADA paths-of-travel are specified on the site plan for connection between the main hospital and all perimeter driveways. RTA operates Route 24 along some portions of SR79 but the bus currently does not stop at this site. RTA Is currently studying a general reconfiguration of bus routes In South- west Riverside County and anticipates additional bus service along SR79 and Margarita Rd In the relatively near future since it Is an important arterial that would serve many commercial generators of bus traffic. In considering what transit amenities would be appropriate for the Temecula Hospital site, RTA staff looked at other comparable hospitals in the Inland Counties. In some cases, such as Route 17, the hospital Is important enough to be the route terminus or name of the line as identified on the bus itself. Also, several distinct transit routes often serve a single large hospital, as listed on the next page. It was found that in general, buses would come onto the site, close to the main building, to drop off and pick up passengers if the facility was publicly owned, such as Riverside . F :ldataIPlanninglMikeMlWordlDev Reviewl T emecula\2004IT emeculaHosp.doc County General Medical Center in Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like Kaiser or San Gorgonio, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby street. Some examples of transit service and stops are: . · Kaiser Hospital in Riverside: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having multiple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc; · Loma Linda Hospital: 3 lines, with transit stops at several locations on perimeter of complex and other nearby medical facilities such as the Veterans Hospital; · Riverside General: 3 lines, with transit center and bus turn-around on site, very close and convenient to main building; · Riverside Community: 2 lines, bus stops along Magnolia, off the property; . Corona Regional Med Ctr: 2 lines, bus stops along S Main St, off the property; · St. Bernardine Med Ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland Valley Regional Medical Ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon its full build-out. RTA staff believes Riverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop configuration would be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the former also has several medical towers, doctor offices and a similar perimeter access road network. No on-site access for regular transit buses is anticipated at either site. To ensure safety and convenience of future transit operations at the Temecula Hospital, RTA is respectfully requesting the site plan or associated street engineering plans be amended to include a two or three-bay bus stop and bus turnout located at: . . North side of State Highway 79, on the far side (west of) the proposed signalized intersection with Country Glen Wyand the primary hospital entrance. The stop's taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end ofthe intersection's radius and extend for no less than 220 ft to accommodate two parked buses. The exact position would depend on location of utility structures, commer- cial signs, street lighting, key landscaping and other factors. The minimum depth (i.e. width) of the turnout is 10ft, however this may be reduced to 5 ft if a designa- ted, striped bike path is installed along this portion of State Highway 79. · Additionally, RT A requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the main building going directly out to the requested bus stop location. · RT A staff also requests that the project proponents consider investing in some additional architectural amenities for the bus stop, its benches and shelters by perhaps taking this opportunity to make a positive visual statement at this site in the. interests of maintaining the community image of Temecula. Because this facility will be one of the most well-known and visited places in the city, its bus stop is deserving of a high-quality bench and shelter that are visually compatible and complimentary to the main building architectural theme. The applicant's architect or engineers are urged to contact RT A staff for further details. RT A staff will request the multi-bay bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above be made conditions of approval for cases 04-0462 and 04-0463. RT A staff will work with future developers of the eastbound bus stop site (across SR 79) to ensure it is comparable and compatible with the stop in front of the Hospital. . INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: July 21, 2004. F :ldatalPlanninglMikeMIWordIDev Reviewl T emecula\2004IT emeculaHosp.doc @ Iancho '* Board of DirectorS John E. Hoagland President Csaba F. Ko Sr. VICe President Stephen J. Corona Ralph H. Daily Ben R. Drake Usa D. Herman John V. Rossi Officel'S: Brian J. Brady General Manager Phillip L Forbes Director of Finance. Treasurer E.P. "Bob- Lemons Dired:orofE:ngineering Perry R. Louck Controller Unda M. Fregoso District Secretary/Administrative Services Manager C. Michael Cowett Bed Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel July 12, 2004 -~..~ .... "- ......-.", -. ,?;>:~Y_>' - 6~:i. 1~ ~ :v /).1' '':\ '&' /) ..... ~ "\ V1}"> ~ '-0 -~ @ ~~ WATER A V AILABILITY, TEMECUL GIONAL HOSPITAL; PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP 13043; PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 6813; AND PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, NO.3, AND NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP 13734; APN 959-080-001 THROUGH APN 959-080-004, AND APN 959-080-007 THROUGH APN 959-080-010; P A04-0462 AND P A04-0463 Dan Long, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 - 9033 SUBJECT: Dear Mr. Long: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off- site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. All on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of RCWD. The project proposes to relocate RCWD's 12-inch discharge pipeline and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline must be contained within a minimum 20-foot-wide easement, which is located such that no. permanent structures or trees are located within its boundaries. The projeCt proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these requirements. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CAUFORNIA W A lER DISTRICf 'lY1:/ t7t; _ ~c~e:erpeter, P. Development Engineering Manager 04\MM:mc018\fCF . c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Bud Jones. Engineering Project Coordinator Rancho Calil'ornia WaleI:' District 42135 Winchester Road . PQst Office Box 9017 . Temeeula, California 92589-0017 . (909) 296-6900 . FAX (909) 296.6860 . . . ~ ATTACHMENT NO.6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) R\C U P\2004\04..()463 Temecula Regional HospitaJ\PC 11~16-,o5\PC~STAFFREPORT11-J6-05 v2.doc 41 :g:4;1;:i~t~~~~,:;:r;~;-~L:;:~~~,;t~::~J~~~w~~~..ii;L~~::~~.m-~"i-'~_- I I , -1 I __~~~~ ;;;i~~~.::~~G:~-~~3:-~~~~-J';;~'f'':c~-~j:;..:~:~~i . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959- 080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04- 0571) WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); WHEREAS, 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; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and WHEREAS, a Draft Focused 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 8, 2005; and R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso TPM.DOC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16, 200S, 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; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. OS-_ recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. FindinQs. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application, hereby recommends the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is . consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment; B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract; C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant; D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the Project site, and the Project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the Application; E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospilal Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso TPM.DOC . . . F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided; H. The subdivision is a commercial/office Project and is not subject to Quimby fees. Section 3. Recommendation of Approval. Based upon the findings set forth above, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Project (Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468) to consolidate eight parcels totaling 3S.31 acres into one parcel subject to the Project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and'incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 200S. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa TPM.DOC STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. OS-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of November, 200S, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso TPM.DOC . . . . EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_ . (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) . . _ _ J mz:'- RICity Council Agenda Manager\20051112205\ReglonalHospilailHospital 81aft Report and AesoslCC AesoTPMaCJC .......... ..... . ..... ... i _~ii!i.~~~.";;.,~!.i?":2r~~j~t;d::~_i?j~iGi~;"*'-:;;;~~iiii~i~_i5fe;;~~-~~,~'_~~~~if~~~~:~;H4~~ff~--t~i?~ . RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF ivIARGARIT A ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0571) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural FindinQs. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: . A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.(UHS), filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA 05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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. C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that a Focused 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 Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Project. . F. A Draft Focused 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 8, 2005. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso TPM.doc G. The Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16, 2005, 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; and H. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_ 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. 05-_ , recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468. J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 22, 2005, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment. K. 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. 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." The Final Envjronmentallmpact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. L. AI/legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. FindinQs. makes the following findings: The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby . A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code. B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a . contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act contract of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Aesos\CC Reso TPM.doc . . . C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant; D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the Project site, and the Project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the Application; E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. H. The subdivision is a commercial Project and is not subject to Quimby fees. Section 3. Conditional Approval. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468, Application No. PA04-0571, consolidating eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into 1 parcel, for the property generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as assessors parcel no(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ,2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC ResQ TPM.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2005, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa TPM.doc . . . . . . EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 1 . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0571 Project Description: A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 32468) to consolidate eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 DIF: Office TUMF: Service Commercial/Office MSHCP: Commercial Approval Date: November 22, 2005 Expiration Date: November 22, 2008 R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Planning Department . 1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The applicant shall comply with the phasing plan, as superseded by these conditions of approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, PA04-0463 and PA04-0571. . 5. The owners association may not be terminated without prior City approval. 6. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 7. All the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or nay use allowed by this permit. Public Works Department 8. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 9. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 3 . . . . 10. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 11. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 12. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or property owner. 13. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 14. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in movements. WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. Planning Department 15. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($914.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination forthe Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure. of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT Planning Department 16. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 17. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 18. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaJ\I-Iospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 4 consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the . discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. 19. A qualified paleontologisVarchaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologisV archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologisVarchaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 20. The Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 21. The Applicant shall enter. into a pre-construction agreemenVtreatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. The agreemenVtreatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreemenVtreatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre-construction agreemenVtreatment plan to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. . 22. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 23. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 24. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospitar Staff Report and Aesos\CC COAs TPM.doc 5 . . . . Public Works Department 25. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 26. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 27. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF A FINAL MAP Planning Department 28. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty miles (30) of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. ii. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. iii: This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. iv. This property is located within an area identified by the City ofTemecula General Plan as being a sensitive area with regards to archeological and paleontological resources. c. In the event the project site is subdivided into multiple parcels, an Owner's Association shall be required to be formed. In addition, Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted the City of Temecula for review and approval. CC&R's shall address the following: i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance, identify and include methods of maintaining all open space, landscape areas, drive aisles, private roads, parking areas, exterior of all buildings and any common areas. ii. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. iii. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Planning Director, City Engineer and the City Attorney and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and it's citizens. R:\C;ty Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\RegionaJ Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 6 iv. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments and . the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. v. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, rnanagement, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and facilities. vi. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and rnaintained so as not to create a public nuisance. vii. The CC&R's shall provide that the association may not be terminated without prior City approval. viii. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. ix. All open areas and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Works Department 29. . The Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau e. Planning Department f. Department of Public Works g. Riverside County Health Department h. Cable TV Franchise i. Community Services District j. Verizon k. Southern California Edison Company I. Southern California Gas Company 30. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RIW) to R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 7 . . . 31. 32. . include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer connections) i. Westbound a) The dedicated right turn lane into the main entry (Country Glen Way) shall be 12 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum. b) Provide three (3) thru lanes c) Provide one (1) thru lanes ii. Eastbound a) . Provide two (2) left turn lanes b) Provide two (2) thru lanes and c) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane iii. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way. b. Improve De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' R1W) to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer connections) c. Improve Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R1W) include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Dona Lynora (66' R1W) to include the installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) b. Private 28 foot wide ingress/egress road connecting to De Portola Road to include installation of paving and curb per the approved site plan. c. Main Entry/Country Glen Way i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle ii. Southbound (exiting site) a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Aegional Hospital\l-lospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 8 Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. g. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. h. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground a. b. c. d. 33. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 34. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map with the exception of two (2) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. 35. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from De Portola Road on the Parcel Map with the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. 36. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 37. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 38. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. 39. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 40. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 9 . . . . . . 41. obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. 42. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 43. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Department of Public Works. 44. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. " Fire Department 45. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B) 46. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A) 47. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in an ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 10 48. This parcel shall maintain reciprocal access to all parcels. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS . Public Works 49. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 50. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 51. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 52. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the T emecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 53. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. . PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY Public Works 54. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase I, the following improvements shall be constructed and operational: a. Highway 79 South i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way ii. Roadway improvements a) Westbound (i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long (ii) Provide three (3) thru lanes (iii) Provide one(1) left turn lane R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 11 . 56. b) Eastbound (i) Provide two (2) left turn lanes (ii) Provide two (2) thru lanes and (iii) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane b. Main Entry/Country Glen Way i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle ii. Southbound (exiting site) a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide c. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' R/W) i. Half-width roadway improvements ii. 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection from project site to De Portola Road d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap e. Dona Lynora (66' R/W) i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase II, the following improvements shall be constructed and operational: a. Dartolo Road (Principal Collector- 78') i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works . . 55. 57. All public improvements, including traffic signal modification, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 58. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. . R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc 12 OUTSIDE AGENCIES 59. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated November 19, 2004 from the Rancho California Water District. . 60. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 19, 2005 from the Department of Environmental Health. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name R:ICiIy Council Agenda Managerl200511122051Regional HospitallHospital Slaff Report and ResoslCC COAs TPM.doc 13 . . . ~~ . July 7, 2004 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE . COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ~rL:' ,; P I.,j I,; MI-'.I. u; ,~ ,I .'. \: \ HI JL" ",n04'" ....... V L.J' 'i! - b.i City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Dan Long By ~== RE: Plot Plan No. P A04-0462 & P A04-0463 Dear Mr. Long: Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 to construct Temecula Regional Hospital and has no objections. Water and sewer services should be available in this area, although we have not in receipt of any information concerning those services. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE REQUIRED: a) "WilI-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. . b) Any food establishments, (including vending machines), shall require three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330. c) Any hazardous materials handling or storage shall require a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955- 5055) Sincerely, Sam Martinez, Supervising Euvironmental Health Specialist (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials . ..Geel Enforcement Agency. P.o. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 . (909) 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781.9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 .and Use and Water Engineering' p.0. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (9091955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Stree~ 2nd Roor, Riverside, CA 92501 City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 T emecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: ~ \...o..Jq 51180.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTR~ IE 0 ill ~ InI AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRJIW~ ..'.: ! III Uu JUL 2 8 2004 ~ 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager-Chief Engineer . By Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: ~ ~C>'f"''l- ~ pA- 0'/--04'-3 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated .cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. Dislrlct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific mterest to the District induding District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control al)d drainage facilities which. could be consider!l~ a !ogical compone'1f.or e?dension. of a master plan systel'(1, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mItigation fees). In addition, . Information of a general nature IS provided. . The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: . This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional Interest proposed. $- This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administratIve fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be conSidered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District woulo consider accepting ownership of SUch faCIlities on wntten request of the City. Facimies must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project is located within the limits of the District's Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applIcable fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order only 10 lfie Flood Conlrol Dislrict prior 10 issuance of building or grading permits whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION . This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESl Ilermit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If thi!l project invl?lves a Fedel'!ll Emergent;}' Managem~nt Agency (FEMAl mapll6d f109d plain, .then the City should reqUire .tIie applicant to proVide all studIes, calculations, plans and. oilier Information reClUlred to meel FEMA reCluirements, and should further require that the applicant oblain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a nalural walercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this proje<1. Ihe City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department 01 Fish and Game ana a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or. written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requIrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of tfIe Corps 404 permit. )( ~ ~G.JI ~/4..\IT s1\1'tl,L ll~ D~nr.-Il..":::t? fO(2.. MoJo{ .,J D{l..1'- W rTlH N T'~ l>1S~ C.T 14 qtt1-C:>F'- w'I<'f '(Z-- W (",It D\E-TJZ\ c..r pP.q \...f 11 F;S. "~~c.,^........ q~\"" l,..{~r:-I c:.....M Very truly yours, ~~ ARTURO DIAZ Senior Civil Engineer Date: i:J'iYY.z~ ;1a:J.f . . . . ,- ., - July 21,2004 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517-1968 Phone: (909) 565-5000 Fax: (909) 565-5001 Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner Planning Dept., City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: P04-0462 and PA04-0463 - Temecula Hospital- Comments from RTA Dear Mr: Long: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,000 sq ft medical complex at Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's internal Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility options for this project. To encourage and enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTA recommends the site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features: · A paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant transit bus stop with a 220 ft-Iong tumout configura- tion capable of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed along the N side of SR 79, just west of the primary hospital entrance. The bus stop should incorporate a paved passenger waiting area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters. .. Information note: Sufficient right-of-way appears available for this turnout without significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure installations. · RTA staff is also recommending designation on the plans of an additional specified clear path of travel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital building. · RTA staff also advises that the project proponents work with the City to install two new passenger shelters at the new bus stop that are complimentary to the hospital's design and architectural themes. RTA requests these recommendations be made conditions of approval for PA 04-0462 and PA04-0463. If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at (909) 565-5164 or contact me online at mmccoy@riversidetransit.com. Si?;::w 9nc Michael McCoy . Senior Planner F:ldataIPlanningIMikeMlWord\Dev ReviewlTemecula\20041RTA Urhd - Temec Hosp.doc '~.. lIrA - - RiversIde 1I'ansit AgencJ July 21, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To: Anne Palatino, Director of Planning Mi~ael McCoy, Senior Planner ~ City of Temecula, Cases PA04-o462 & -0463: Plot Plan review and CUP for 535,000 sq ft of hospital and medical-related facilities, N of State Route (SR) 79 and W of Margarita Rd; Riverside Transit Agency (RT A) Comments Bus routes involved: Existing Route 24 and future bus routes From: Subject: Summary: Universal Health Care Services Inc proposes a site plan and conditional use permit for the Temecula Hospital project, 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35 now vacant acres V. mile west of the SR79-Margarita Rd intersection in a rapidly expanding commercial district of Temecula. This will be the first full-facility medical institution in Southwest Riverside County and will be a distinct asset to the community, challenging planners and engineers to provide a robust suite of mobility options for access to it. The project includes the following components: . 176-bed, 6-story hospital building, including Emergency admittance · A 5-story expansion of the hospital . Two multi-story medical office buildings . Cancer center . Fitness center . 1280 parking spaces . The site plan's perimeter and interior circulation patterns are very good, with primary access provided directly off a signalized intersection at SR79 and Country Glen Wy. The hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drive-thru loop suitable for van- pools, paratransit and most private vehicles. Several ADA paths-of-travel are specified on the site plan for connection between the main hospital and all perimeter driveways. RTA operates Route 24 along some portions of SR79 but the bus currently does not stop at this site. RTA is currently studying a general reconfiguration of bus routes in South- west Riverside County and anticipates additional bus service along SR79 and Margarita Rd in the relatively near future since it is an important arterial that would serve many commercial generators of bus traffic. In considering what transit amenities would be appropriate for the Temecula Hospital site, RTA staff looked at other comparable hospitals in the Inland Counties. In some cases, such as Route 17, the hospital is important enough to be the route terminus or name of the line as identified on the bus itself. Also, several distinct transit routes often serve a single large hospital, as listed on the next page. It was found that in general, buses would come onto the site, close to the main building, . to drop off and pick up passengers if the facility was publicly owned, such as Riverside F:ldatalPlanninglMikeMlWordlDev Reviewl T emecula\2004IT emeculaHosp.doc County General Medical Center in Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like Kaiser or San Gorgonio, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby street. Some examples of transit service and stops are: . . Kaiser Hospital in Riverside: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having multiple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc; . Loma Linda Hospital: 3 lines, with transit stops at several locations on perimeter of complex and other nearby medical facilities such as the Veterans Hospital; . Riverside General: 3 lines, with transit center and bus turn-around on site, very close and convenient to main building; . Riverside Community: 2 lines, bus stops along Magnolia, off the property; . Corona Regional Med Ctr: 2 lines, bus stops along S Main St, off the property; . St. Bernardine Med Ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland Valley Regional Medical Ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon its full build-out. RTA staff believes Riverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop configuration would be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the former also has several medical towers, doctor offices and a similar perimeter access road network. No on-site access for regular transit buses is anticipated at either site. To ensure safety and convenience of future transit operations at the Temecula Hospital, RT A is respectfully requesting the site plan or associated street engineering plans be amended to include a two or three-bay bus stop and bus turnout located at: . . North side of State Highway 79, on the far side (west of) the proposed signalized intersection with Country Glen Wyand the primary hospital entrance. The stop's taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end of the intersection's radius and extend for no less than 220 ft to accommodate two parked buses. The exact position would depend on location of utility structures, commer- cial signs, street lighting, key landscaping and other factors. The minimum depth (i.e. width) of the turnout is 10 ft, however this may be reduced to 5 ft if a designa- ted, striped bike path is installed along this portion of State Highway 79. . Additionally, RT A requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the main building going directly out to the requested bus stop location. . RT A staff also requests that the project proponents consider investing in some additional architectural amenities for the bus stop, its benches and shelters by perhaps taking this opportunity to make a positive visual statement at this site in the interests of maintaining the community image of Temecula. Because this facility will be one of the most well-known and visited places in the city, its bus stop is deserving of a high-quality bench and shelter that are visually compatible and complimentary to the main building architectural theme. The applicant's architect or engineers are urged to contact RT A staff for further details. RT A staff will request the multi-bay bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above be made conditions of approval for cases 04-0462 and 04-0463. RT A staff will work with future developers of the eastbound bus stop site (across SR 79) to ensure it is comparable and compatible with the stop in front of the Hospital. . INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: July 21, 2004. F:ldatalPlanninglMikeMlWordlDev ReviewlT emecula\2004lT emeculaHosp.doc @ Rancho later Board of DirectorS John E. Hoagland President Csaba F. Ko Sr. Vice President Stephen J. Corona Ralph H. Daily Ben R. Drake Lisa D. Berman John V. Rossi Officers: Briau J. Brady General Manager Phillip L Forbes Director oCFinance-Treasurer E..P. "BobR Lemons Director of Engineering Perry R. Louck Controller Uncia M. Fregoso District Secretary/Administrative Services Manager C. Michael CoweU Best Best &. Krieger u.p General Counsel July 12, 2004 /<~, '\ ,c......' ~ //" '\ /.>."'~. p~ " (C-,,./ '" N- .;. -0 :\ ....j.../ - ','\. V /) ,1' ',' <:nO' '" -.:--' e ?~~') 0(' ~2 :~ v...... ~ @ ~~ WATER AVAILABILITY, TEMECUL GIONALHOSPITAL; PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP 13043; PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 6813; AND PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, NO.3, AND NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP 13734; APN 959-080-001 THROUGH APN 959-080-004, AND APN 959-080-007 THROUGH APN 959-080-010; PA04-0462 AND PA04-0463 Dan Long, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 - 9033 SUBJECT: Dear Mr. Long: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off- site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. All on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of RCWD. The project proposes to relocate RCWD's 12-inch discharge pipeline and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline must be contained within a minimum 20-foot-wide easement, which is located such that no permanent structures or trees are located within its boundaries. The project proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these requirements. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ~~e~er,p. Development Engineering Manager 04\MM:mc018\FCF c: Laurie Williams. Engineering Services Supervisor Bud Jones, Engineering Project Coordinator Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road. PQst Office Box 9017 . Temecula, California 92589-9017 . (909) 296.6900 . FAX (909) 296.6860 . ATTACHMENT NO.7 . RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC>STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc 42 ii~~~~~~i,;~t~::'~,~if41:~~-'""~:b~~t~~~,;:~=. i -, "'~'11&~:i;i:_:;"'~::~~~~~L -" ._~:~;,_. -A:f:"l . ::~~~~~~_~2;1~",.a:~~~~~ . S TAT E OF C A L I FOR N I A Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ~DF""":."" ,.~~ I *-=,,~ 7 ...-. i 'il,,-"7DI .!J ">i -". "~OF~~~. . Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Sean Walsh' Director October 31, 2005 Emery J. Papp city of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 //D)~ @ ~ II [V] ~m UIl Nav 0 2 2005 @j By Subject: Temecula Regional Hospital SCH#: 2005031017 Dear Emery J. Papp: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the . . enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on October 28, 2005, and. the corinnents from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is uot in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future . correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 211 04( c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: . UA responsible or other public age.ncy shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are.. required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments sball be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you. need more infonnatioI} or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. . . This lette! acknowlOdges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review reqnirementsfor draft environmental documents, pursuant to .the California Enviromneiltal Quality.Act. Please contact the State . Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 ifyo\1 have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, M'"~ ~ . . . Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures ce: Resources Agency . 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 . . TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov SCH# Project Title Lead Agency Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base 2005031017 T emecula Regional Hospital Temecula, City of . Type EIR Draft EiR Description The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9) Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limns the height of buildings along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDD-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Condnional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight .Iots into one parcel. Lead Agency Contact Name Emery J. Papp Agency City of Temecula Phone (951) 694-6400 emall Address 43200 Business Park Drive City T emecula Fax State CA Zip 92590 . Project Location County Riverside City Temecula . Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township N. of Hwy. 79 South 1 De portola Road 1 Margarita Road 920-100-001 through 013 Range . Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1-15, Hwy. 79 S Airports NIA Railways None Waterways Temecula Creek Schools Sparkman ES, Rancho Community (private school under construction Land Use Vacant z: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDD-8) GP: Professional Office Project Issues AestheticlVisual; Air Quality; Cumulative Effects; Landuse; Noise; Traffic/Circulation; Water Supply Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Parks and Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Integrated Waste Management Board; Office of Emergency Services; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Health Services; Department of Water Resources; Department of Conservation; Califomia Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 7; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Department of Toxic Substances Control Date Received 09/28/2005 Start of Review 09/28/2005 End of Review 10/28/2005 . Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. .0 ,\ I ..:~ ----..; - Department of Toxic Substances Control Alan C. Uoyd, Ph.D. Agency Secretary CallEPA 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor October 14, 2005 RECEIVED OCT 1 92005 or.e Ct y' l {) '.28" 0'5 't Mr. Emery J. Papp City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 STATE CLEARING HOUSE NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2005031 017) Dear Mr. Papp: . Th~ Department of Toxic St:Jbstances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: :'A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot'fitness . rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. " Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has comments as follow: 1) The EIR should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. 2) The EIR should identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies: · National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). . @ Printed on Recyded Paper Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 2 . . Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CaISites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. . . Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCM facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. . Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLlS): A database of CERCLA sites that is . maintained by U.S.EPA. . Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well asciosed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. . Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLlC): A list that is maintained by Regional . Water Quality Control Boards. . Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. . The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 3) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government . agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing Qr potential threats to public health or the environment. If no imrnediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state regulations, policies, and laws. . . . . Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 3 4) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including Phase I and" investigations, should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found should be clearly summarized in a table. 5) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions, if necessary, should be . conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction, and overseen by a regulatory agency. 6) If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, except for a gas station, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone Property. 7) If building structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas or other structures are planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations, policies, and laws. 8) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas; Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. . If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another . location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 9) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 4 . 10) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations. (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Oivision 4.5). 11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite, or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required. If so, the facility should contact DTSC at (818) 551-2171 to initiate pre application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility. 12) If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. 13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the . requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 14) If the project plans include discharging wastewater to storm drain, you may be required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board. 15) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater' contamination issugpected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the EIR should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. 16) If the site was and/or is used for agricultural activities, onsite soils may contain pesticide, herbicides and agricultural chemical residue. Proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to construction of the project. DTSC provides guidance for cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. . . . . Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 5 .If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Joseph Cully, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email atjcully@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, ff;~ Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 . Sacramento, California 95812-0806 CEQA#1179. " . . . 7.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR This section of the Final EIR contains comments and responses to written comments received during the public review period on the Draft EIR (DEIR) extengi61l from September 28,2005 through October 28,2005. Pursuant to Section 15105(d ,(W"rand Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline .. City of Temecula requested a shortened review period to the Governor's Offic ing and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit. The followjrf pages jain the State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit letter dated Septem~~26, 2005 t ccepted the shortened review period of 30 days, as well as the Cl\1iX1rShortened Review uest Form with an attached letter to agencies. /~*~,::> '\r;U;i~?,\ ,,:Jw.' Revisions and clarifications to the EIR in response to COirttP0~Dl~iland information received on the Draft EIR are indicated by strikeout (DEIR te"t remo'..c"'till'i:kunderline (text added to the Final EIR). Corrections of typographical rors have been ril1\:"> throughout the document and are not indicated by stri/(eo",t or unde Each letter has been assigned a number co " ancJ., .' omments in each letter have been coded as well to facilitate responses~~tI~)r'Y examp, e letter from the Riverside Transportation Commission j !ified as lette[, 1, with comments noted as 1-1, 1-2, etc. Al' -1~, i2~ that AJ'ress Environmental Comments Issues ? om th ",.If/wing organizations and individuals during the 3D-day ctober '2'8<'2005: v' 1. ecutive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2. Gre of Toxi 3. Stephanie. 2005. 4. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. October 26, 2005. 5. Salvador M. Salazar, AICP. Best Best & Krieger LLP. October 26, 2005. 6. Salvador M. Salazar, AICP. Best Best & Krieger LLP. October 28, 2005. 7. Gloria D. Smith, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, October 28, 2005. CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 7-1 . STATE OF CALlI'ORNIA iQovernor'e Office of PlanJ:}ing a!ld Re[lBl!rch__. State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ~~I~n. ..*~. (~~ ~i . A1Ilold Schwammeggel" Governor SGll1lWIIIiib Director . September 26, 2005 Emery J. p,ipp City ofTemecula . 43200 Business Piirk Drive Temceula, CA 92590 RE: Teinecula Regional Hospital (EJR) SCH#2005031017 Dear Emery 1. Papp: We have reviewed your shortened review request and have determined that. it is consistent ~ith the criteria set f6rth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for shortened reviewi, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code. . The shortened rc~ew period for an EIR shall nol be 105s than 30 days. TIle review process for lhe. referenced prdject will start on 09/28/2005 and end on 10/28/2005. If you have any ql,l~liolls, please contact Scott Morgan at (916) 445-0613. ,Z~rr- ~erryRobeils . . Director 00: ftle 1400 TENTIl STREET P.O. BOX ilQ44 SAQRAMENTO, C/WFORNIA 961112-S1J44 . TEL (Ol6) 445-06l9 FAX (916) 328-90lS WWW..pr."".e<W . . .' . . Shortened Review Request Form Fonn E \ (70 be filled out and signed by the LoM Ageooy and submitted with DEIR or Negative Declaration 10 SCH) To: State ClearinghoUse P_O.. BOx. 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 From: CITY OF TEllECULA ~dAglmcy: 43200 Business Park Drive Ad""" Tl!mecula. CA 92590 Phone #; (951 ) 694-6400 SCIl # 2005031017 nlMKCULA RKGIOlIAL IWS1'ITAL Contact: K!IKRY J. l' Al'P. AIel' SENlOR PLANNER Project TiEle;; Project Location: TElIECULA City RIVERSIDE County . ExplaiJ'l "exceptional clrcumsuUlces" (CEQA, S=cti~n 15205(d)) fQr requesting a shortened review: An initial study (Sea #2005031017) for this pro1ect was previously released for public review and cmmnent with the intent of preparing a HiUgated Negative Declaration. The cODDen!; period for the proposed Hirigated Negative Declaration was March 8. 2005 throngh April 6. 2005. No State Ageu"ie" ".........nted OJ< rhe od.ginal Initial Study. The "cope of the project has not changed; however. the City is now recQJDmendi!Jg that a Focused EIR be prepared. The attached leUe" was sent to agencies requesting cheir authorb",tion for a shortened revietl'. The City received nO responses to this letter. - List responsible and trustee state agencies, as well as any tlgencies that have commented on the projec[ (Indjcate whether the Respon- sible and Trusree Agencies have granted apptoval for this shortened review): . Native Allleriean Heritage COIIIIIli.ssioD 8/15/05 No comment concendng shortened request Rive~side Transit Agency 8/19/05 Pechanga Cultural Resources 8/29/05, No eomment concerning shortened request . No comment eonee.E"D.iD8 shortened ~eques~ AS designaccd representative for the lead agency, I verify, in their behalf. mat there it! no "statewide, regiOll31, Or areawide significance" to this project. .Length of review being requ~tcd; 30 day, D'/U/OS I ' Today', Oat. t.ft~,fyr Revised Janu!1')! 2004 EllERY J. PAiP1' Print Name :<B City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Completion SCH # 20050310 17 Project Title: TOImCllIa Regional Hospital . Contact Person: Emery 1. Papp P A04-0462, General Plan Amendment OIld Zone Change; P A04-0463 Development Plan Title: Senior Planner and Conditional Us. l'ennit; and PA04-05'!1 TetItative Parcel Map Lead Agency: City of Temecul. Phone: (951) 694-6400 Street Address: 43200 Business Psrk Drive City: Temecula, CA Zio: 92590 Project Lo<:uUon Within 2 miles City of Texnccula, Riverside County Slate Hwy II: Interslate 15, Highway 79 South Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South. AirporlS: NI A south of De Portola Road and west of Waterways: Temecula Creek MargArita Road Railways: None Assessor's Parcel No.: Schools: Sparkman Elemenlary, Rnncb.o Community (private school under . 92Q..1OQ-OOI through 13 construction) Total Acres: 35.31 CEQA Document Type [ ]NOP [ ]Negative Declaration [ ]Supplement EIR [ ]EIR (prior SCH II) r !Earlv Consultation fXlDraft EIR [ )SUbBeQuenl EIR r lOther Lo...l Action Type [ ]Oeneral Plan Update I ]Spccific Plan [X]Rezonc [ ]Annexation [X]General Plan Amendment [ ]Mastet Plan ( ]Prezone [ ]Redevelopment [ ]Gen.ral PlanElemenl [ ]Planoed UnIt Development [XlUse Permits [ ]Coastal Pc:rmi, [ ]Commonity Plan [X]Sile PlanlPlol Plan [X]Subdlvision ofLand [ ]City Development Project I IOther Development Type [ )Residential: Units_ Acres_ [ ]Water Facilities: Type MOD_ [XJOffice: Sq.ft.I40.OOlJ Acres 35.31 Employees_ [ ]Transportation Type [ ]Commorcia1: SQ..iI._ Acres - Employees_ [ ]Mining: MIneral [ ]Induslrial: Sq.ft._ Acres_ Employees_ (JPowet: Type [ ]Educational: [ ]Waste Treatment Type I ]Recreational: [ ]Hazardons Wasle: Typ<\ OOOther: Hosoital 408 160 So. Pt.' Cancer Center 10000 Sa Ft.. Hines; r..nter R.om So Ft. Project houes Discussed in Document [XJAestheticIVi,ual [ )F1ood PlainlFlooding [ ]SchoolslUniversities [ J Water Qualiey [ ]Agricultural Land [ ]Forest LandlFlte Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [XlWaler supply/groundwater [XJAir Quality [ lGeologic/Seismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ lW.t1andlRiparian [ ]ArcheologicallHistorical [ ]Mineral, [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ lWildlife [ ICoastaI Zone [XlNoise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing [ ]Drain.ge/Absorption [ ]PopuIadonlHousing Balances[ ]Toxic/Hazardous [X]Land Use [ ]Economicl1obs [ ]Public S.rviceslFacilitie, [XJTrafficlCircuJation [XJCumnlative Effects [ ]pj,oa/ [ lRecreationIPark, r lVeeeration [ IOlher: Li~hl &. Glare Present Land Use: Vacant Current Zoning; Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDQ-B) General PInn Use: Professional Office Project DescriptIon: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDQ-g) Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (pDQ-B) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% 01 roof areas lor hospital and medica] offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approxImately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel MaD is a reeueslto consolidate eieht (8) lots into one (1) parcel. Mail1D: State Cle:lriDghouse, 1400 Tenth Slteet S'Cl""""tD.CA 95814 (916)445-11613 R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 TemecuIa Regional Hoc.pit.a1\NOTlCB Of COMPLETION FEIR 09-26-05.doc I . . . REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKUST . KEY S~DOC11lllCJlt sent by lead asency X~Documenl senr by SCH T=Sugge,tod dislribution - Re>>onrces Agency Environmental Affairs - BoatingIW aterWays .- Air Resources Board - Coastal CollJJllil;sion -L APCD/AQMD - Coastal Conservancy ..I. California Waste Management Board - Colorado River Board - SWRCB: Clean Water Grants - Conservation - SWRCB: Delta Unit -I Fish and Game -I SWRCB: Water Quality - Forestry - SWRCB: Water Rights - Office of Historic Preservation ..I.. Regional WQCB # 9 ( ) - Parks and Recreation Youth & Adult Corrections - Reclamation - Corrections - S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission lndependent Commissions & Offices ..I. Water Resoun:es (DWR) - Energy Commission Business, Transportation, & Housing l Native American Heritage Commission J. Aeronautics - Public Utilities Commission -L California Highway Patrol - Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy ...L Callfans Districl No. -L - State Land Commission ...I. Depllllnlent of Transportation Planning (Headquarters) - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - Housing & Community Development - Food & Agriculture - Other . Health & Welfare . State & Consumer Services -L Health Services - General Services ...I. OLA (Schools) PubHc RevIew Period: Starting Date: September 28, 2005 Ending Date: October 28, 2005 Signatwe Date September23,200S Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable): City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Emery J. papp, AICP Phone (951) 694-6400 For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts DlUe to Agencies Date to SeH Clearance Date Notes: Applicant: Universal Health Services. Inc. Address 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, P A 19406 Phone (610) 768-3300 . R,\C U P\2OO4\04-0463 Temecula llcgional Hospitl:ll\NOTICB OF COMPLETION FEIR 09-~~.dQc 2 . City of Temecula Planning Department 43;!oo Buslnei. ParkDJive. Thmccula, CA 92590. MlIiIlIigAtldte,,: P.O. Box 9033. TClllOCIlIa, CA 92SS9-9O:l3 (951) 694-6400. FAX (951) 6!l4-6477 Augusl2, 2005 Trustee and Responsible Agencies SubJecrt: Request for Shortened Review of a Draft Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital ProJect Dear Agency: The City of Temecul~ Planning Department will be the Lead Ager.Jcy and will prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report (E1R) for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. The City ofTemecula Is requesting a shortened (30-Day) review of the EIR for this project The shortened review Is being requested because at a scoping session, held on April 20, 2005 where the City heard public Input and testimony, the City. determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential Impacts identified in !he . attached NOP should be prepared for this project. Furthermore, an Initial Study (SCH It 2005031 Ot7) for this project was previously released for public review and comment with tt)e intent of preparing .R Mitigated Negative Deolaration. The comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative DeO/aration was March B, 2005 through April 6, 2005. No State Agencies commented on the original Initial Study. Comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been addressed. The scope of the project has not changed; however, the City is now recommending that a Focused ErR be prepared. Pursuant to Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the Callfomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Temeoula believes that the project is not of statewide, regional, or area wide significance, as defined in Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the City of. Temecula Is .requesting that your agency approve the request for a shortened review period for this proJect. We respectfully request that your agency provide written approval of the request for a shortened review period to Emery J, Papp, Senior Planner, CIty of Tamecula, by August 15, 2005. If I may be of any ass/stance, please call me at (951) 694-6400, or via e-mail at emelV.oa.DD@clfvoftemecuJa.ol'g. Thank you for your consideratIon and quick response to this request. . z~/ IL~ ~e~ J-,~PP, k{cp 'rf . Senior Planner Attachments: N.otice of Preparation Initial Studyb (Continued on next page) . cc: "J R..\C U P\2OO4\04-.04Ei3 Temeeula Regional H~hoJtened Review ReqUest. Agencleadoc .. . .. - .-1 ,. State; , CA Department of Fish & Game Regional Water Quality Control Board State Clearinghouse CA Department of Water Resources Federal: Army Corps of Engineers U.S. FIsh & Wildlife Service Bureau of Land Management Reolonal: South Coast Air Quality Management District Western Riverside Counoll of Governments Riverside Countv: AIrport Land Use Commission Flood Control and Water Conservation Dlstriot '1ealth Department . Planning Department . Ha.bltat Conservation Agenoy Riverside Transit Agenoy Transportation Department Utilities; Eastern Munlofpal Water District Inland Valley Cablevision Rancho Califomia Water District Southem Cafifornia Gas Southem Califomia Edison Temecula Valley School District Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Ve~n Other. Pechan9a Indian Reservation Eastern Information Center Local Agency Formation Commission Riverside County' Transportation Commission FtlClJ ~T_RqJlonaI~IaJ\SIloII"""'v""ROQua,t-A_,-doc '. "S'"':,:;;.1/f,;"'Y: . IIwmkk C""'J &gimuJ Com?", 1080 Lml.n s""'~ 3>" FI.., . Ri~ Califomi. MiUling Add_ />n,/ Ojji<. PW<' 12008 '11m",1'!', Glli}>",... '2502-2208 PI""" (')51) 787-7111' Fib< (9,51) 787-7920 ...............mr; -~~~ v_ l .'~ . .v;;"sideCou,uy ransportatiQ', OmnnissJ011 -. . '.' - October 4, 2005: Letter 1 Mr. Emery J. Papp Senior Planner City of Temecula: 43200 Business t>ark Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Subject: Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (E'IR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project ISCH No. 2005031017) Dear Mr_ Papp: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ReTC) received a copy of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project in the City of Temecula on September 29, 2005 and are providing you with the following comments: . 1. RCTC is concerned about any potential impact. to State Route 79 (SR-79) and Interstate :15 (1-15). Most of the impacts are expected to occur at driveways entering onto SR-79 and local streets such as De Portola Road as well as other nearby roadway intersections. Several mitigation measures are listed in Section 4.6 (Transport~tion} pages 4-93 lhrough 4-95 .and again on pages l-15 and 1-16 and pages 1- fa through 1-20 of the Executive' Summary, which would alleviate potential impacts. RCTe supports the City's requirement for these mitigation measures.: Please ensure that all mitigation measures are implemonted both during and after construction_ 2. Will 'Preemption" of local traffic signals be used for emergency vehicles entering and exiting the hospital, especially ambulances approaching the Emergency Room? Will emergency lIehicles use the main entrance way at SR-79 or will they have a separate d~signated access? 3. Will an Emergency Operations Plan be prepared that will outline procedures to I evacuate the facility during a disaster emergency? Would all the evacuation traffic 1-3 be forced 9nto 1-15? 1-1 1-2 4. The Hospiial is defined as a Regional Facility. The new MRI, cancer treatment facilities and Fitness Center will draw patients from a broad. area. Halle the cumulative impact. of these potential traffic generators been fullv evaluated to determine: that all nece<sary and appropriate measures are induded before final project approval? 1-4 . . . . Focused Envirortmentallmpact Report {EIRI for the TemecuJa Regional Hospital Project (SCH No'. 2005031017) Page -2- 5. The Draft: Focused fiR indicates that adequate parking will be provided (1.278 spaces on: surface lots!. What about employee parking? Is it indluded in the 1,278 space tot~l? . What measures will be put. into place to prevent employees from parking in 'the surrounding neighborhood? . 6. In the fut4re: the hospital surface lot parking areas could be abs6rbed by expansion projects. :Will the future parking demand be fulfilled by parking ~tructures and has any preliminary thought been given as to where these structures ;mlght be? Access and visual'impacts are usually slgnlficant impacts associated with parking structures and shoul~ be given early consideration. " 7. There are: many other residential and commercial development projects near the Hospital project area and RCTC wo'uld like to see that all of this ongoing effort is closely coordinated. Coordinate directly with Caltrans concerning SR-79 and 1-15 for .this project. Contact John Pagano, Caltrans IGR Coordina~or, at (909) 383- 6327. 1-5 1-6 1-7 This cUfIllludes RCTC's comments. Should you have any questions or require additional information, plea~e contact Bechtel Measure "A" Project Coordinator, Gustavo Quintero, at (951) 787-7935.' Thank you for giving ReTe the opportunity to comment on your Pratt Focused EIR. . j:;eIY, . It!::'~a . Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director ReTe Riverside County'Transportation Commission Cc: John Pag;:!no, Caltrans 08 8i11 Hughes, Mike Davis, Gustavo Quintero- Bechtel M:\Environmental Revi~ws Nou-PrujIH;l\ 1 00305DEIRTemeculaHospitaIProjet<.doc 1. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission, October 4, 2005. . Response 1-1 The comment states the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTe) concern regarding potential impacts to Highway 79 South and Interstate 15, and RCTes support of the traffic mitigation measures. After project approval, the mitigation measures in the EJR will be implemented through a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to ensurSj,]i;that all mitigation measures are implemented and completed. The comment is aCknow,leO'ged, and no further response is required. / /1' Response 1-2 "ii, Highway 79 Sbi;j1bor the De from iln: ilQlergency '....n,. '....'..w ;.: Emergency vehicles will use either the main Portola driveway, depending upon the direction call. Pre-emption of traffic signals will not occur. Response 1-3 As the hospital is a critical facility in the e'~n.1of an emergenc" . not anticipated to occur. Persons may iQ:Jt aken to th ciJity should a disaster occur. If the need to evacuate arises, si\\h,place ih accordance with City emergency response plans, which provide ifpr;'jf~nation routes and directions depending upon the loca:~~~i.,cope of a 'o.q( er. 'F7 Response 1-4 ,~, ~t", ',1. ;1;') <'~ ~;, 4,t C.e< ,~ ~f' . ~~ According to the proj ngineer, the M!}J facility, Cancer Treatment Center, and Fitness Center were all i n:~~&l~Jj:J~ation forecast for the project. . ;-iiliJ,,, <<iVI' be provided on surface lots include parking for cility. The 1,278 total parking spaces exceed the City's parking 3 parking spaces for the proposed project. The greatest excee is associated ith parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, ich the D.e:v~lopment Code requires one space per three beds. The parking provided . e sit~ceeds the standards contained within the Development Code because apph~t,J;ras~d of experience at other hospitals owned and operated by Universal Health Services,'1r~lfeves that the City of Temecula code requirements do not fully account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common within most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason.' Providing additional parking guards against employees parking in surrounding commercial development or residential neighborhoods. 1 Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Ine. - Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. . ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 7-10 . Response 1-6 The applicant has no plans for expansion of the hospital or construction of parking structures. CEQA guidelines require an EIR to analyze reasonably foreseeable significant effects of a proposed project. The expansion of the hospital or its facilities is not anticipated in the in future and thus, has not been analyzed in this EIR. Any future development on this site would be subject to CEQA review at the time proposed. Response 1-7 . The comment states that there are many other residential and development projects near the proposed project, and efforts regarding impac 0 way 79 South and Interstate 15 should be coordinated. The City requires a cuf\l~ alIve a ., . s of all projects in the vicinity of a proposed development and analyzesli!impacts of a 'ects through the CEQA process. The traffic generation from 17 cum five projects was ded in the traffic analysis. No additional analysis is required. . . 7-11 CITY Of TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL " I ~~ .-.J - . . e Department of Toxic Substances ContrQI Alan c. uOyd, PII.D. Agency Secselary CaIlEF'A 5796 Corporate Avenue cypress, California 90630 Arnold SchwlIrZOI1egijCf GcYllmor October 14, 2005 Mr. Emery J. Papp City ofTemecuf:a 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 NOTICE OF PREPARATioN FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL DRAFT." ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2005031 017) . Letter 2 Dear Mr. Papp:: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received ypur submitted Notice of Prepliration (NOP) for the draft Environmental Impact RepOrt (EIR) for the above-mentioned project. The following project description is stated In your document: uA proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospita~ approximately 408,000 squarE! feet In size, two medical office buildings approximat~ly 140,000 square feet in size, a 1l),OOO square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 squarE! foot fitness rehabilitation c~nter, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, apprOXimately 700 feet west of Mar~arita Road. . . 2-1 Based on the r~view of the submitted document DTSC has commentk as follow: 1) The EIR should identify and determine whether current or histbric uses at the project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wa$tes/substances. The EIR should identify any known or potentially contaminated sites w~hin the propose~ Project area. Forall identified sites, the EIR should;evaluate whether conditions at the site m<"!y pose a threat to human health or the environment. A Phasa I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies: . . National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Eilvironmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). . I 2-2 2) 2-3 . (j) Printed on Recycled Paper . . . Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 200'5 Page 2 . Site Mitigation Program Property Database (fonTIerly CalSites): A Oatabase primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. . R~source Conservation and Recovery Information SystJm (RCRIS): A ~atabase of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. . Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensatiqp and Liilbility Information System (CERCLlS): A database of CERCLA sites that is'~"-~~~:;:>, maintained by U.S.EPA. . . S61id Waste Information System (SWIS): A database pri;>vided by the California Integrated Waste Managemenf Board which consists of both 2-3 oRen as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and Cont. transfer stations. . Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Uiaks. Investigations and Cleanups (SLiG): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. . LOcal Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sItes and leaking underground storage tanks. . The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard. Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 3) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any requirediinvestigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and'the government agency tp provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardoUs materials or wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment Should be . conducted to detennine if a release has occurred. If so. furthel- studies should 2-4 be carrieid out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the . potentiaUhreat to public health and/or the environment should:be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the envi(onment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state regulations, policies, and laws. Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 3 4) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regljlatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. :The findings of any investigations, including Phase I and II investigations, should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found should b$ clearly summarized in a table. . . 2-5 5) Proper in~estigation, sampling and remedial actions, if necess~ry, should be conductei:l at the site prior to the new development or any con~truction;.antf''''''",.~",::"", " 2-6 overseen by a regulatory agency. " " . If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with: hazardous chemical~, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, excapt for a gas station, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border 4cme of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone ~pe~ . 7) If building structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas or other structures are planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presenc~ of lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbe~tos containing materialS (ACMs). If lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations, policies, and laws. . 6} , . 8} The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated solI. If the soil is contaminated, property dispose of it rather than placing it in another location, : Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project proposes to Import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported 'soli Is free of contamination. 9) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. ' 2-7 . .2-8 2-9 2-10 . . . . Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 4 10) If it is det~rmined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the . proposecfi operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (Califomia Health and Safety Code, 2-11 Division 20. chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Californi/;. Code of Regulations. Title 22, Division 4.5). . 11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days,;(b) treated onsite, . or (c) disposed of onslte, then a permit from DTSC may be rect!Jired. InO;,.th&,..,.,,~-12 facility should contact DTSC at (818) 551-2171 to initiate pre application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility. 12) If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated. the facility should obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number 2-13 by contacting (800) 618-6942. . 13) Certain Hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the require~nt for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 2-14 . . 14) If the project plans include discharging wastewater to storm dr~in, you may be required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional 2-15 Water Quality Control Board. . 15) If during Construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groLindwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be impletnented. If it is 2-16 determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, toe EIR should identify ~ow any required investigation and/or remediation wilf'pe conducted, and the iilppropriate govemment agency to provide regulatory oversight. 16) If the site was and/or is used for agricultural activities, onsite spils may contain pesticide, herbicides and agricultural chemical residue. Proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to 2-17 construction of the project. . DTSC provide~ guidance for cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at 2-18 www.dtsc.ca.gOv. . Mr. Emery J.Papp October 14, 2005 Page 5 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Jos~ph Cully, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email atjcully@dtsc.ca.gov. . Sincerely, ~~ Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office co: Governot's Office of Planning and Research State CI~aringhousB P.O. Box 3044 Sacrame'nto, California 95812~3044 Mr. GuentherW. Moskat, Chief Planning:and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Departmi'lnt of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 .....:,......"...~...:..::~~.... . CEQA #1179 l' . . . . 2. Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch, Department of Toxic Substances Control, October 14, 2005. Response 2-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required. Responses 2-2 through 2-7 As the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) indicated, the proje a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sit Government Code Section 6S962.5. A search of DTSC's Hazar, te and Substances Site list (Cortese list) for Riverside County confirms this con psi on.' T prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in con~ion with the ' osed project, as one was not required by the City for the apPliCatiO, ~~rocess. G" enerally, "se I reports are required by prospective lenders during a prope~~purchase process but no art of a discretionary permit application. However, the appli'" t was .aBT~ to provide revious undated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepa HJ'1f;'bridge Consulting, Ine. for '":1fJ a previous owner of the project site; the report applie :~ nly 2S acres of the current project site. The T urn bridge Consulting, ne. report conclu ,at no evidence exists that current or historic use of the site m ,~ resulted release of hazardous waste/substances. of app val, and consistent with standard City practices and operator will be required to submit for review and approval by artment of Environmental Health and Fire Department a ry Statement and Fire Department Technical Report. Such report Response 2-8 The comment is noted. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, standard procedures to comply with California environmental regulations, policies, and laws will be implemented. 2 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Cortese List, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Cortes€_Ust.cfm?county=33, Date Accessed November 8, 2005. CITY Of TEMECUIA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 7-17 . Response 2-9 The comment is noted. As noted in Response 2-9, no known soils contamination exists. The project applicant will apply standard procedures to comply with California environmental regulations, policies, and laws regarding contamination of soils being excavated, imported, and reused. Response 2-10 Through the permit issuance process, the City will ensure that th all applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations. Response 2-11 through 2-14 The comments are acknowledged. As stated in Res approval, and consistent with standard City applicant/operator will be required to submit for re County Department of Environmental Health and Fire tment a Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Repo .)It.lch report will be kept on files, and should any quantities of hazar aterials usedv~lt~twed on-site increase or should changes to operation introduce an hazardous'.~~Jerial not listed in such reports, the operator will be required to rts. Moreover, the proposed project will comply with the California Haza ou~ Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, ter 6.5) an ,il!.!lie Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of RegulA 22, Divisj~n 4.5). ,IT .'iIl kjf'~;1?" . Response 2-15 iY' ,(;'11<__ As indicate . the c:on\ments above, no known hazardous soils conditions exist on the property. The~[itho California Water District is responsible for ensuring acceptable groundwater qualitY. Through the permit issuance process, the City will ensure that the applicant complies with all applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations. Response 2-17 Refer to Responses 2-2 through 2-7. . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECUtA 7.18 . . . Response 2-18 The comment is noted. This comment provides a closing statement to DTSC's comments on the Draft EIR. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 7-19 ( 'h:.lirpcn.lln: Ucnn:unc Artrel... . PEClfANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES Tf!1IIE'C'ula Balld <If Lui~;riiiiJ MissiiJn lmffans VtCC Cb1i.lTp~n: Mary }kar M:sgCi:' POst ()fficc_ Box 218,1 . Tcm~ll,. cA 1)2593 Tclepbrmc(9SI) 30H'-CJ195. F:ax (95'1) 506.9491 Gnmmmcc Mcmhcn:: ltaymondHasqU1:1. Sr, f:vic (ierher I)arlcnc Miranda Rridp,ett tlarcello M:ixwdl ni(~~11lJ. O'"yO\iRlit-.. October 24, 20GS Cwnlilla,ul: 1'.1UIM;I~'lIro- Emery J. Papp City ofTemccula Planning DepartJ)lent 43200 nushless Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 f'ull\ll':lll\l\:,I~I. Sh:ph:lJu~ (i,lrdlll Ml,lfHltn'S.litx.1'VIl>~'r: ^uRIi:l Muinirfo Letter 3 Re: Comments on TemecuJa Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Papp, Tlus comment letter is sub,mitted by tbe Pechanga Band ofLuiseno Indians (hereinafter, "Pecbanga Tribe"), a federally recognizcd Indian tribe and sovereign government. The Pechanga Tribe is formally requesting, pursuant to Public Resources Code $2 1092.2, to bc notified and involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above referenced project (the "Project"). .i 3-1 Pursuant to our discussion yesterday, it is the Tribe's understanding that, in addition to the conditions listed as ilclllS 5b and 5i in the initial study, the City intends to include as a condition of approval, to be Completed prior to grlIding, the requirement for a Treatment 3-2 Agreement between the developer and the Tribe. A$discussed, the Tribe hils some additional items which it will be requesting be added as mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Whilc the Tribe appreciates the City'swillingness to include conditions of approval for the project which will protect the potential culluml resources on the site, it has a concern about 3-3 the City's lack ofinclusion of cultural resources in its CEQA evaluation ofthe project. r am also requesting that the County of Riverside include an additional mitigation measure that deals specifically with the treatment ofremains, if they are found during any grading' activity. The mitigation requirements should also include information relating to the 3-4 pre-excavation agreement which requires the developer to provide compensation to the monitors during the Project. - Sar:n'dlo; TIll? ,?IJ~Y rrWiMd (Int" ()ur rm'~ .4nn Wi,,, fln/lOr We nise Tt> Thf' Nied . . . Pechanga comment letter to the County ofRivmide Planning Dcpartment RE: Comments on Draft Focused EtR for the Temecula Regional Hospital Page 2 THE LEAD AGENCY MUST INCLUDE AND CONSULT WITH THE TRIBE IN ITS REVIEW PROCESS It bas been the intent ofthe Federal Govenunentl and the State ofCalifomia2 that Indian , tribes beconstiited with regard to issues which impact cultural and spirilual1\.'Sources, as well as other govcnunental eoocems. The responsibility to consult with Indian tribes Sl,ems from the unique government-to-govemmcntrclationshipbetween the United States and Indian tribes. This arises when tribal interests areaftected by ,the aclions of governmcntal agencies and departments such as approval of Specific Plans,and EIRS~ In this case, it is undisputed thaI the project lies ,within the L\liseiio tribe's traditional territory. Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and other applicable Federal and California law, it is imperative that the Lead Agency and the Project applicant consult with the Tribe in order to guaranlee an adequate basis of knowledge for an appropriate eval\lation of tile project effects, as weIl as generating adequate mitigation measures. 3-5 'fHR CITY INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED CULTURAL RESOURCES1N THE DRJR .- While a copy of the eulroral resources survey is included in the EIR and the Tribe understands that a "focused" EIR was intended, there is no section discussing culluml resources and no mitigation measures specificaIly addreSsing cultural resoilrces, despite the fact that the City and cultural ~esolltCes report acknowledge that the Froject is ina culturally sensitive area- As the City is aware, there is a highly sensitive cultural site in close proximity to this Project sile. While thc.cultural resources report concludes that there werc no resources located on the project ,site; this is not, a conclusive evaluation since no subsurface testing was perfonncd. Because of the proximity to the other significant site, the Tribe believes there is a likelihood for culturaI resources to be encountered during ground disturbing activities. Thus, the Tribe believes that culturaI resources shOlild havebccn included as a topic of evaluation in the focused ElR. 3-6 CEQA makes clear tIlat the main purposes of an EIR is to identify and analyze the environmental effects ofaproject. (CalifomiaPublic.R.esourcc Code ~2100'U(a); 14 California Code of Regulations ("Guidelines") ~15126). As currently drafted, the draft EIR does not provide adequate protection for significant archaeologiCal aIld cultural sites and does not , adequately follow the provisions for CEQA and its Guidelines, including Calif. Pub. Res. Code !l2108~.2(b) (avoidance as prefcrred method of preservation of archaeological resources), CEQA Guidelines ~ 15 I 26.4(b)(j) (agencies should avoid effects on historical resources of archaeological nature). and CEQA Guidelines ~I5020 (lead agency responsible for adequacy of cnvironmcntal doc\lments). Inclusion of project conditions of approval does not substitute for the City's obligations 10 adequately mitigate under CEQA. 1 See Executive Memorandum of Apn129, 1994 on Govtrnmtnl-lo-Government Relations with Native American Tribal GovornmonlS and Executive Order of November 6, 2000 on Consultation and COordination with Indian Tnbal Governments, 2 See California Public Resonrce Code 95097.9 et scq. , Pl"c:hango ell/ruml Resot/l"l.'C's. Teme(,Jfla Bal1d o/LuiSfJ1io Mi.tyi(liJ /Jujkm.'t; Post Olliee Box 2183. TemeCllla. 0192591 Saued Is The DlI(I' TruJ'ted Vow Ollr('are.4nd Wuh Honor We Rise liJ lne N..d Pechanga comment letter to the County of Riverside Planning Deparbttent 'RE: Comments on Draft focusedETR for toe Temecula Regional Hospital . Page 3 In order to approve an EIR the City is requited to make finding that it has adopted mitigation meaSures that have clUninated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the envirQnment wheN feasible. CEQA Guideline ~ 15092. Since there are currently no mitigation measures addressing cultural resources, the focused ElR does not fully address the required cultul'lll resources protections as it does not propose mitigation measures which would eliminate or substantially lesscnsignificant effects on cultural r0::5ources. Because there is a potential for the discovery of cultural r(:Sources andlor human remains on the Project site, appropriate mitigation must be adopted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21082 and CEQA GuideliPes !i~ 15064.5, 15126-4 and 15151 a Lead Agency should make provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during construction. At. detailed below, inclusion of mitigation measures addressing cultural resources are needed to address the Tribe's cultural concerns and to, assure that the Project is in full compliancc with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations, Calif. Pub. Res. Code !i21000 et :seg.. and CEQA Guidelines !i. 15000 et seg. It is the Tribe's position that its proposed mitigation measures will enable the City to make the required fmdings. The CEQA and. its Guidelines mandate that avoidance is the preferred method of preserving archaeological resources, Calif. Pub. Res. Code ~21083.2(b). See also CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126.4(b)(3). PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES The pechanga Tribe's primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native American cultllr.ll reSQurccs. As was discussed above, the potential likelihood of discovering cultural resources is very high, due to other known resources found in close proximity to lhis project. The mQst well knOwn cultural site within this area is a hugc Luiseiio vi lIagesite, which has been previously documented and is.known to contain at leaSt fifteen archeological sites within a one mile radius of this village. Within this village site numerous cultural items have been fOlllld including whole metates as well as fragments, pottery shards and many other personal and sacred items. The Pechanlla Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as LuisCflo villagc sites and archeological items which would be displaced by ground disturbing work on the project, and on the propel and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course ()f the work. The Tribe would also like t() point out that a preferred method of treatment for archeological sites according to the CEQA is avoidance and that this is in agreement with the Tribe's practices and policies concerning cu!turd.] resourccs; The Pechanga Tribc asserts that the Project area is part of the Pechanga Tribe's aboriginal territory, as evidenced by the existence ofLuisci'io place names, rock art pictographs, petroglyphs and extensive artifact records found in the vi~inity of the Proj!lct. Further, the P~!dJa}Jga CItllural R(!.wrtrt'e.v "_li!mec:ula Buncf t{LlliSq;io .1,/;$sln11 IndiaJLf Po.,' Office Box 1183. n'm.mlll. CA 92,f9.? SU('rel/ b- Thc Duty Trl{.~tcd UnTO. Our {ar"Alld W;thllclIWT We Uise I'n Thf' Nerd . 3-6 ConI. . 3-7 ; . . . . Pechanga comment leuerlo the County of Riverside Planrting Department RE: Comm,ents on Draft FocusedEIR for tbe iemecuta Regional Hospital Page 4 Pechanga Tribe believ~ that ifhuman remains are discovere4, State law would apply 3I!d the mitigation measures fot the permit must account for this. According to the California Public Resources Code, ~ 5097.98, if Native American human remains are discovered, the Native American Heritage commission must name a "most likely descendant," who shall be consultcd as to the appropriate disposition of the remains. Given the Project's location in Pechanga territory, the pechanga Tribe intends to asscrt its right pl1ISuant to California law with regard to any remains or items discovered in the course of this project. ror this reason, additional mitigation language is reqUested prior to the finalized EJR being approved. REOUIRED MITIGATION 3-7 ConI. Given this Project's close proximity to known cultural sites that Were not discusse4 in the Initial cultural study, including a known village site, Pechanga request the Conditions of Approval that were presented in the Initial Study, along with those addresses below, be included 3-8 as mitigation measures as well as Conditions of Approval which are required to be met prior to the issuance of grading penuits. The following conditions listed in the Initial Study are requested to be included as mitigation: 1. , 111e landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, inCluding archaeological artifacts found on the project site, 10 the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent authorized by the law. 2. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontologist, archacological and Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The m.onitor's shall each have ~c authority to tem.porarily hall and/or divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which lltelikcly to contain remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The fOllowing measures should be included as both mitigation measures and conditions of approval: 3. If human remains are encountered, all activity shall stop and the County Coroncr must be notified inunediately. All activity must cease until the ' County Coroner has dctcrmined the origin and disposition of said remains. The COroner shall determine if the remains are prehistoric. and shall notify the State Native American Heritage Conunission if applicable. Further actions shall be determined by the desires of the Most Likely Descedent. 4. Prior to issuance of the grading pennit, the developer shall enter into a . Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be encountered during construction. The Agreement will further contain (I('c}uwgn Cultural Resolln'e.r . nmu;wulo ROlli) fJj'T.llive,ifl Mi.\~ricm lncli(I1J~' Po,w q{lict! Box 118.1 -n'm,'cllia. CA 92592 Sntrt!,f l.. The Du~v Tnt.\'ll!d Unto Our Ct'jl~ A/Jd With HOflor Wi'Ris<: 1b the Nf';fJ.if 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 Pecbanga comment leller 10 the County of Riverside Planning Department RE: Comments on Draft Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital PageS . provisionsoftril?atmonitors and address compensation for the Native American monitors being paid by the developers. /3-12 ConI. 5. All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and preserved, 13-13 The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with the applicant, the City of Temecula Planning Department and other interested agencies in protecting the invaluable Luiseiio cultural r,:sources found in the Project area. If yoU bave any questions, please do not hesitate to COntact meat (951) 308-9295 or Laura Miranda at (95 I) 676-2768, Ext.,2137. Thank :You for the opportunity to submit these comments. Sincerely, ~~. t!JsJii Stephanie Gordin' Culturat Analyst' . PeclraJlgQ Culwral Resaun't!.f. Temel:lIl11 Ban,i l?ll.uise,j(J Mi\'sidN flll/illn.~' Post Office Box lJ.Y.1 . Temeell/a. CA 91592 e Shcre" I.. The nu'y Tn/t/(J'(1 {brill (Ju" (.'(Jre And With 110mII' ",Co Rh~ 1b the Nc'er! . . . 3. Stephanie Gordin, Cultural Analyst, Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, October 24, 2005. Response 3-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians' (Pechanga Tribe) comments on the Draft EIR. The comment is a formal request pursuant to Public Resources Code ~21092.2, to the Pechanga Tribe to be noticed throughout the proposed project's CEQA process, The Pechanga Tribe has been on the ,~.i~tribution list for throughout the entire CEQA process and will continue to be notified n mailings occur. Response 3-2 This comment is acknowledged regarding the additional 'tf measu ,~j"nd conditions of approval. Both the City of Temecula Planning Com Ion and City Co'cp" will review all project conditions of approval, including those no In the Initial Study for t oposed project and incorporated into the conditions of a' I doc\J.wents. The co it10ns of approval include the requirement of a pre-constructioee.m'e'ntjtreatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians prior to the issuance 0 "rg(Jing permits. Consistent with state law, such plan must set forth and contain the terms an(f?~6'4\ditions for the treatment of ",,'x,,": any discoveries of any previously unkno surface Native.rA{'J1~rican cultural resources or human remains that may occur during ,. 'vities, 'Ie';;];!':. IJ'" j' i:t Response 3-3 ~J~' rlij,..* '''\c;:Gf,l" ,about the\ck of inclusion of cultural resources in the rojecl. Th'~nitial Study, contained in the Draft EIR as d project's Impact on cultural resources. Pursuant to the proposecPIproject will result in a less than significant ,~s. The following two reports, included as portt e onclusion of a less than significant impact on itional analysis is required per CEQA. ources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech., Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Response 3-4 See Response 3-2. The applicant will be required to comply with agreements, as well as Sections 15064.S(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations) addressing the discovery of human remains during the grading or construction process. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl 7-25 Response 3-5 . The comment is acknowledged. Maintaining a good working relationship with the Pechanga Tribe is important to the City. As noted in Responses 3-1 and 3-2, the Pechanga Tribe is included on the project notification list, and per project conditions of approval, the Tribe will be consulted by the project applicant and can be present during ground-disturbing activities. Response 3-7 Response 3-6 The comment is noted. Please refer to Responses 3-2 and 3-3. If t the City Council, conditions of approval will be adopted by the """ the conditions will be enforceable measures that the applicant must comply ':'11, prior'!'"'' roceeding with different phases of the project. Additional mitigation is nq~~'€cessary pe' Section 1 S 143 because impact to cultural resources w 1'identified as less during the Initial Study analysis. The comment is acknowledged. Please refer to Pursuant to """ Sections 15064.5(d) and (e) of the CE" uidelines and Joposed conditions of approval, if human remains are identified , grading or e ",tion phase, state law and standard reporting practice will be im~l!,m 'ii!ljt~l!b!', site' ust be cleared by the appropriate authorities prior to the restart of~n~~ ion'aciI~j.t!:es, ;g..y- Response 3-8 through ' }} . The comment is the Initial Study, all to the project. "',Pt"?+. Responsea3'lij". ,:,Cj ,'0, AtrY'" " ',<' <';~~[n.~ '~n sacred sites\~~!, identiff~a' as part of the cultural resource investigations cited in se 3-3. If, as resul!;lj'l,f grading and construction monitoring activities, any sacred site is " ered, such activiti~ will cease until appropriate reconnaissance and treatment can be corT!~~ted. Consiste~~;w!th state law (see Public Resources C~de Section 21083.2[b]), treatment~~l:wld Includxffdeslgnlng of project components to avoId, protect, and respect such cultur~I~~sources}/ .~1it~-, ",;41 "4$7#_~-}? ::W-r~ Response\~2. All four conditions of approval cited in Ci~1>ractices and regulations, will be applied . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY Of TEMECUIA 7-26 WARREN I). WILLIAMS (~esu~Taf Mllnagcr-OticfEllwneer . . . 1995 MARKET SntEF.T RIVFRSlI>E, CA 9;2501 951.95~;1200 951.788.996SFAX ww\.'dllx)(}cuntn,ll.co.nvcn:ida.ca.us RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSER V A nON DJSTRICT October 26, 2005 Mr. Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner CityofTemeeula ' Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Letter 4 Dear Mr. Papp; Re: Draft EnvironmentiJ Impact Report for Temecula Regional Hospital This letter is writteri in re~'Ponse to the DraA: Environmental Impact Report (DELR) for the Temccula ': : Regional Hospital projeeL The proposed project is localed on the north side ~f HighwdY 79 South, ',: south of De Porlohi Road, and approximately 700 feet wesl of Margarita Road, wilhin the cily of:: 4-1 Temecula ' The Riverside COWlty Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has the following ,.' COnlll1enls/collcemstbat should be addressed in the Environmental Impact RCpOrt (EIR): 1. Existing District facilities arc located adjacenl 10 the proposed project area amI may be " ' impactcd. Thc proposed project may impact thc District's Temecu1a Creek Line V, Any work that involves District rights-of-way, el1Sements, or facilities will require an:: mcroachment permit from the District. Thc construction of facilities within road right- :: .. 9.t:'way that may impact District storm drains should also be coordinated with us. T~ obtain further'informatiol1 on encroachment permits or existing facilities, contact Ed Lotz : i of the Eocroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266, .. 4-2 .-~'.~". 2. Page 4-33, Section 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality of the DEIRincorrectly states that :: the District reviews all proposed projects ,within the planning area. :Ple-",<;e he advised that ~' thc District docs not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use :: cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases, or :: provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District commentsJrecom~endalions lor such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other ':' regional :f1ood control and drainage facilities which could be 'considered a logical :: component or extension, of a master plan system, and Area' Drainage Plan fees' (developinent mitigation fces). Plcasc refer to the previous leUer dated August 25, 2005 that is in~luded in the NOP Responses section of the DETR. 4-3 Mr. Emery J. Papp : Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Temecula Regional Hospital -2- October 26, 2005 : . 3. It is wc1ear in the DEIR where the proposed stann drain system will outlet. Any impacts.: : that may occur to the DistTict's Qxisting LinQ V StagQ 2 Chaniwl as a result of the :' connectiOn should be addressed. Potential impacts include, but are not limited to, 4-4 biologiciu resources, air quality, water quality and potential for increased erosion due to concentration of flows. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please forward any subsequent' environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. ' Any further questions ' conrerning this letter may be referred to Steven Horn at 951.955.1200 or me at.951.955.1233..,~;. TERESA TUNG Senior Civil Engineer c: TLMA Attn: David MaTes, Ed Lotz . SCH:mcv P8\t02972 ,.,....~,_......,.~~:":'c"::... . . . . 4. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. October 26, 2005. Response 4-1 This comment provides an introduction to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's (District) comments on the Draft EIR. No response is necessary. Response 4-2 The comment is noted. ,Per standard City practices and regula Department has included conditions of approval for the encroachment permit from the District for any work within.~, Distne ight-of-way. An additional condition of approval requires that a copy of th~'grading and i along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculati,q1;it be submitted t approval prior to the issuance of any permit.,.' Response 4-3 't;~~~~~~; > In response to the comment, under the subheading on page 4-33 of the Final EI revised to read as follows: 'i~i/;'\~{? "Storm Water"i!fW!:'age and Water Quality" first sentence o'Nt~!;l$tirst paragraph has been ~;?"",d f:;fili'~ 'E'~ To ensure that adequate development, all--propose be reviewed by the R' the re uest of the a '~l'fi.available to support new ~ . ects within the City of T emecula are mav ounty Floo ontrol and Water Conservation District...1!1 pproval by' ,e City of T emecula. Iv. '":\ the impact co~~lusions contained in the ElK As noted in li'grading and improvement plans, along with ns, be submitted to the District for approval f the Draft EIR, currently the eastern watershed on the project site d to the draina channel (the District's existing Line V Stage 2 Channel). The project apifJi~nt propo to construct storm drain outlets into the District's Line V Stage 2 Channel di~il..east ,~f the project site. Current flows into the channel are anticipated to increase as a re~llIJ,k~ the project. The hydrology and drainage analysis report prepared for the project (November 2004) analyzed the impact on channel capacity. The report concluded that the slight increase in flows into the channel will be less than significant; thus, the proposed project will not impact downstream drainage systems.' Per standard City practices and regulations, a condition of approval will be applied to the project requiring that all grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic an'd hydraulic calculations, be submitted to the District for approval prior to the issuance of 3 Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRe Company). Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center. November 2004. CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 7-29 any permit. The applicant will be required to implement any measures imposed by the District. . The comment suggests that biological resource impacts should be analyzed in relation to the channel. The project applicant does not propose construction within the channel and thus, no such analysis has been conducted or is required. If, subsequent to project approval and through the review of improvement plans, any construction within the channel is required to comply with District directives or to address any additional requirements that the City Council may impose as a result of public hearings, then subse A~nt environmental review will be required per CEQA for any such activity. Id be analyzed in quality impacts ct analysis is The comment suggests that air quality and water quality im[l relation to the channel. Section 4.1, Air Quality of the Draft,~analyz associated with the construction of the proposed project~~o additional required for air quality. ..1J" Water quality impacts will be less than significant J result ~~6mpliance wit andard City practices and regulations, enforced through con I,' ,~,.ofdpproval, that implement the City's NPDES permit. Construction-phase and post-constfU"'" n BMPs will be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and s bject to the appro the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The projec nent will also p " 'lie proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term maintenan ctural pos ':<:ipstruction BMPs. No additional impact analysis is required with r ' Iity. '.' All other impacts related to thg, District chan '-'"<'''''''-:0,:)" the proposed project d.::l!ts;'Ao~lPflude con additional impact analy;:ps'is requiri1(l, , /f~t~, less then significant because the channel. Therefore, no . . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECUlA 7-30 . ATTACHMENT NO.8 DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC ll-16-k.15\PGST AFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 43 _::;~;tfi;-':~}.i~it ';!~~~~' 2;~~j.::2"'~'~;''>--=_(:;'''-- '''';;'i'f,j~~''''~~~~ '-';:~:i:':j:'<:'.~:"'7 ",-~~~;liidii-~~~':':l-~~=:;:~:,;~'t;:i'i.{+-~ '"" .-.;~~~;; ..J.'~ e e e e e . Draft Environmental Impact Report TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SCH # 20050310 1 7 September 26, 2005 Lead Agency: City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Contact: Emery Papp, Senior Planner Planning Department Consultant to the City: P&D Consultants BOO E. Colorado Blvd" Suite 270 Pasadena, CA 911 01 e e e Table of Contents Page 1.0 Executive Summary..,...................,...."...........................................................................................1-1 2.0 Introduction ,........................................................................................,........................................... 2-1 3.0 Project Description .........,..............,...................................................................,..,..,..,.................. 3-1 4.0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................,.............. 4-1 4.1 Aesthetics ............ ...............................,.. ............................................. ................................ 4-3 4.2 Air Quality...............,..,.............................................................,........."........,...................4-17 4.3 Hydrology and Groundwater.....................................,........,..,......,.............................4-31 4.4 land Use and Planning,...,.................,........................................,................,...............,4.37 4.5 Noise ............................ ................................ '..... ,...... ...............,.., ....... .............................. 4-43 4.6 T ranspo rtation ...,....,... .......................... ...................... ...... ........"..,......, ..,.... .................... 4-6 7 5.0 Alternatives to the Projecl..............................................,...........,.................................................5-1 6.0 Cumulative and long-Term Effects....................................................................,................,.......6-1 7.0 Preparers of the E1R ...................................................,..,..........................,..................................... 7-1 8.0 References .................."....,.........................................................................,....,........"..,..................8-1 Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Air Quality Worksheets Noise Study Traffic Impact Analysis (To be included in future draft) Burrowing Owl Survey Report letter from Project Architect Regarding Project Configuration Water Supply Assessment prepared by Rancho California Water District CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Table of Contents List of Tables e 1-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................,... 1-9 1-2. Notice of Preparation Lelters.........................................................................,............1-35 4-1. 4-2. 4-3. 4-4. 4-5. 4-6. 4-7. 4-8. 4-9. 4-10, 4-11. 4-12. 4-13. 4-14. 4-15. 4-16. 4-17. 4-18. 4-19. 4-20. 4-21. 4-22. 4-23. 4-24a. 4-24b. 5-1. 5-2. 5-3. 5-4, 5.5. 5-6. 5-7. Air Pollution Sources, Effects, and Standards .................................,.........,..............4-19 Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded: Lake Elsinore Station .........,....... ........................... ..................................,...........................,.... ,............... 4- 20 PMlO Measurements: Perris Valley Station.....................,........................................4-20 SCAQMD Thresholds for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution..4-23 Daily Construction Emissions (in pounds per day)......................,..........................4-24 Operational Phase Regional Emissions (in pounds per day).....,..........................4-25 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ..,.....................,............4-46 City of Temecula Noise Standards............................................,................................4-48 Summary of Noise Measurements.................,......................"............................,......4-50 Existing Traffic Noise Levels.............,..........................,................................................4-50 Estimate Combined Noise Level During Each Construction Phase....................4-54 Analysis of Estimate Construction Noise Levels......,...............................................4-55 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year without Project....................,.......4-57 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phase 1............,....,..............................4-57 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phases I through V..........................4-58 Level of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections .......,....,.........................4-69 Level of Service Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections .................................4-70 Existing (2004 and 200S) Daily Traffic Volumes.............................................,.......4-73 Intersection Operations.. Existing Conditions and Phase I .....................,...........4-77 Existing Conditions and Phase I Roadway Link Analysis.................................,..,..4-79 Phase I Trip Generation.....................................................,........................,.................4-81 Project at Build-out Trip Generation....................,.....................................................4-87 Project at Build-out Intersection Operations .....,.....................................................4-89 Project at Build-out Roadway Analysis (Original Traffic Study) ,....,.....................4-91 Project at Build-out Roadway Analysis (Traffic Study Addendum).....................4-92 Intersection Operations.. Access from Dartolo Road Alternative....,................5-12 Segment Operations.. Access from Dartolo Road Alternative ............,....,........ 5-13 Alternative 5 Project Phase I Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Road) .....................................,.................................................5-16 Project Alternative Project Phase I Segment Operations (Access to De Portola Road) ....................................................................................... 5-17 Alternative S Total Project Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road).....................................,...............S-18 Alternative 5 Total Project Segment Operations (Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road).....................,......................,..,.....5-19 Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives Relative to Impacts of the Projecl...... S-23 e e ii CITY OF TEMECULA ENVJRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl e 3-l. 3-2. 4-l. 4-2a. 4-2b. 4-3a. 4-3b. 4-4. 4-5. 4-6. 4-7. 4-8. 4-9. 4- lOa. 4-lOb. 4-11a. 4-11b. 4-12a. 4-12b. 5-l. . e Table of Contents List of Figures Regional Location Map....,..,..............................................................,..,..,..,..,................ 3-2 Site Plan.... ,.............,................................. ............,.............................................................. 3-5 Photo Locations........,..,............,....................................................... ,.. ,.....,...................... 4-6 Location A - View from Hillside without Projecl..................,..................,......,..,..... 4-8 Location A - View from Hillside with Projecl................................,..,......,............,.., 4-9 Location B - View from Pio Pico Road without Projecl..................,..,..,..,...........4-1 0 Location B - View from Pio Pico Road with Projecl.........,..,......,.........................4-11 Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise Levels ............................,..,......4-4S Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations ...........,..,..,....,..,...4-4S Noise Measurement Locations ..........................."......................................................4-49 Site Plan ........................,......,..,...............,................................................................... ...... 4-5 2 Helicopter Flight Noise Contours....................,..,..,....................................................4-60 Existing Roadway Conditions ..,........."..,...........................................................,..,......4-71 Existing Traffic Volumes ....,..,..,...........................................,.............,...........................4-7 4 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................,.......,..,......................................................,...........4.7 5 Regional Trip Distribution ........,.....,.."......................................................,..,..,............4-82 Regional Trip Distribution ...............................................,............................................4-83 Background Traffic Volumes without Projecl................................,..,......,..,..,.........4-84 Cumulative Project Traffic Flows ,................................................................,..............4-85 Altern ative Site ..,...........,..................,.. ................ .............................,..,................ ,............ 5-8 CITY OF TEMECUlA iii ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Table of Contents This page is intentionally left blank. . . ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl CITY OF TEMECULA . i. . e . 1.0 Executive Summary The Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the development of a proposed regional hospital to serve the City of Temecula and surrounding area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: . A General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 50uth to 2 stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged. . A Zone Change application to change the zoning district applicable to the property from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-B) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30% of the roof area of the hospital. . A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses, . A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000-square- foot cancer center, and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site . A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate 8 lots into a single parcel. Project Location The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Currently the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they are in the process of being demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the east. T emecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately 2 miles to the west. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1.1 Executive Summary Project Objectives City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: . Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services . Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base . Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions . Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula . Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses . Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City Objectives of the Applicant The objectives of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: . Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities . Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices . Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors . Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures Project Characteristics The project site consists of 35.31 acres of largely vacant land covered with non-native grasses and weeds. Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one-third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. A flood control channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 1.2 e e . . e e Executive Summary of willows and cottonwoods. The proposed 566, 160-square-foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of: . An approximately 408,160.square-foot, 2-tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be 6 stories/106 feet high, and the second 5 stories/83 feet high, The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit. . Two medical office buildings, one 4 stories/73 feet high and the second 3 stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers. . A 1 O,OOO-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building. . An 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be available only to patients and on-site staff. A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to 6 landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.' Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading. A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project. Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security, Light fixtures will be pole-mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses. Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16% building area, 30% parking area, and 33% landscape area, 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL '-3 Executive Summary Parking and Access . Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. The project includes the following three access points: 1. Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location 2. Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. 3. Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases, Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3-story, 60,000-square-foot medical office building _ (medical office building #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the . building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IS consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IS is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of the S-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase III will add a 4-story 80,000 square foot medical office building (medical office building #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 10,OOO-square-foot Cancer center and associated parking spaces. Phase V will be the construction of the 8,OOO-square-foot fitness center and the jogging trail. Processing History Prior to preparation of this EIR, the City of Temecula previously circulated an Initial Study (SCH # 2005031017) for this project with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration, The . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 1.4 e Executive Summary comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was March 8, 2005 through April 6, 2005, At a public hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City heard public input and testimony and determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts should be prepared for this project. Comments received from the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration have been addressed through analysis of project alternatives in this Focused EIR. The scope of the project has not changed. Required Actions While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in the EIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the non-hospital facilities. The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals. Executive Summary Agency Action e California Office of Statewide Health . Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire Planning and Development suppression systems City of Temecula Fire Department . Review of security plans and systems City of Temecula Police Department . Approval of Mitigation Plan . Approval of street improvement plans, sewer plans, grading plan, and water and drainage system plans City of Temecula Public Works . Approval of Water Quality Management Plan City of Temecula Departments and . Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing, Divisions overseeing construction mechanical, and sign plans and permits related development . Review and approval of encroachment permits . Review and approval of street trees U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . Approval of Burrowing Owl report/surveys California Department of Fish and Game California Department of . Approval of special use helipad (Heliport Site Approval Transportation, Aeronautics Division Permit) Riverside County Airport Land Use . Review of helipad e Commission Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians . Cultural report approval and pre-excavation agreement Regional Water Quality Control Board . Possible review and approval of stormwater permits Rancho California Water District . Possible review and approval water service permits Riverside County Flood Control . Possible review and approval of permits Riverside County Health Department . Possible review and approval of permits U.s. Army Corps of Engineers . Possible review and approval of permits Environmental Impacts The City of Temecula has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term operation of the proposed regional hospital facility, In addition, the EIR identifies mitigation measures required to avoid or substantially reduce identified significant impacts. A summary of the environmental e ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAl CITY OF TEMECUlA 1-6 e e e Executive Summary impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table ES-l beginning on page 1-9 of this Executive Summary. The analysis contained in the EIR uses the words "signifi~ant" and "less than significant" in the discussion of impacts. These words specifically define the degree of impact in relation to thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section of this EIR. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been included in this EIR to avoid or substantially reduce the level of significant impact. Certain significant impacts, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be reduced to a level below significance. Such impacts are identified as "unavoidable significant impacts." Unavoidable Significant Impacts The EIR identifies the following unavoidable significant impacts: . Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts . Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights . Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts Section 15093 of the CEQA Quidelines requires the Lead Agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the Lead Agency determines these impacts are significant and the Lead Agency approves the project. Therefore, if the City of Temecula approves the propo~ed project, the designated approving authority, the City Council, after certification of the Final EIR, must adopt an SOC for these unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed project. Potentially Significant Impacts that Can Be Mitigated This EIR identifies the following areas of potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less than significant level: . Aesthetics - Light and Qlare Noise - Operational Impacts (Mechanical Yard, Emergency Qenerators, Mechanical Equipment Room, Rooftop Equipment) Transportation - Project Impacts . . Impacts Considered but Found to Be Less than Significant The following project impacts were found to result in a less than significant impact, based on the analysis contained in this the EIR: . Aesthetics - Scenic Highways and Visual Character or Quality Air Quality - Construction Odors and Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Noise (Construction, Qround Borne Vibration, Traffic-related Noise, Sirens, Loading Dock Activities, Parking Lot Activities, Trash Pickups, Landscaping/Maintenance, and Future Exterior/Interior Noise Environment.) . . . . CITY OF TEMECUu\ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL ].' Executive Summary The Initial Study (see Appendix Al prepared for the project determined that the project will result in either a less than significant impact or no impact with regard to the following areas of environmental concern: . Agriculture Resources . Biological Resources . Cultural Resources . Geology/Soils . Hazards/Fire Safety . Mineral Resources . Population and Housing . Public Services . Recreation . Utilities and Service Systems Summary of Environmental Impacts Table 1-1 summarizes the environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the regional hospital, the mitigation measures required to avoid or minimize impact, and the level of impact following mitigation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA ].8 e e e . e e Table 1-1 Summary of Environmentallmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitil!ation Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts Lead Agency must issue .Statement of Overriding Considerations. under Section 15093 and 15126[b] of the Slale CEQA Guidelines if the agency determines these effects are significant and approves the project. Air Quality - Short-tenn, Long-tenn and Pre-grading Significant and Cumulative Impacts unavoidable. AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Shorl-term: Construction activity will produce Transit Agency (RTA) for a final location, design, and type of daily emissions above the SCAQM D staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site. WriUen significance thresholds for NO, and ROG. The authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted NO, emissions are primarily aUributable to to the City of Temecula Planning Department. exhaust from construction vehicles, and the ROG emissions are primarily from the AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage application of architectural coatings. The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques fo, emissions of these pollutants are considered to reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during the produce a significant adverse short-term daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall regional air quality impact because dIe levels of include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and these emissions are projected to exceed vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during SCAQMD air pollutant significance thresholds. the on-going operation of the facility. WriUen proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Lon~term: Air pollutant emissions associated Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit fo, with project operations will be generated due construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of to the consumption of electricity and natural Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices. gas and by the operation of on-road vehicles. Once the hospital and other on-site facilities AQ-3, The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy efficiency are in operation, estimated emissions of CO standards appropriate fo, medical facilities and professional and ROG will exceed the operational phase office buildings, as defined by State of California regulations. thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Even with measures to encourage trip reduction and AQ-4. The applicant/permittee shall submit a final landscape plan for energy efficiency, emissions cannot be the project site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation mitigated to below a level of significance. and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete Cumulift;ve: Vehicle trips associated with the and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require proposed project, other known projects, and temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to ambient "rowth will increase vehicles on area nrevent dust and erosion, with such temnoranJ landscanina to be ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL C1TYOFTEMECUlA " Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact roadways. These trips will all contribute to increased pollutant loads locally and within the Basin as a whole. Cumulative impacts wjll be partially reduced by implementation and achievement of emissions levels identified in the AQMP and air quality components within the Temecula General Plan. However, given that the proposed project itself will result in emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds, the cumulative effect will be significant as well. Mitigation Measures installed at the applicant/permittee's expense. AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the applicant/permittee shall verify in writing (10 Ihe Planning Department) that all earth-moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably possible. AQ-6. Prior 10 the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind.blown dust on site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works Director reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the project construction. AQ-7. The applicanVpermillee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the following examples listed below: . Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site inactive for over four days. . Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. . Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of 12radin12 com[)tetion. . Level of Impact after MitiJ1:ation e ENVlRONMENTAllMPACl REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl CrTYOFlEMECULA 1.10 e e . . Table 1-1 Summary of Environmentallmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures . Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon. . Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour. . Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary coverings. . Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. . Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. The Fugitive"Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. Compliance with TIle Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be subject to periodic site monitoring by the City Grading and Construction AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. AQ-9. TIle applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel. AQ-10. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. AQ 11. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Materialtransnorted in trucks off site C1TYOfTEMECULA 1.11 Level of Impact after Mitivation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAl PI>>I UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water, which shalf be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. Aq.12. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicantjpennittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in tile roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at tile end of each day of grading and/or construction. AQ-13. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the applicant/permittee shalt curtail all clearing.. grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by tile City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the construdion and repainting of the project to the maximum extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROQ) emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coalings. The following websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content coatings: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super- Compliant_AIM.pdf e level of Impact after Mitil1ation e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1.12 CITY OF TEMECULA e e . . Table t-! Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmenlallmpact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti<>ation http://'WWW.rlelta-instilule.orgjpublicationsjpaints.pdf AQ-15, The project site shalf be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. Operations AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered al all limes, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. AQ-17, The applicant/permittee shall provide a dear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to promote altemative transportation. Noise - Helicopter Flights N.2 Helicopter flights shall be limited 10 emergency-only Significant and circumstances 10' critical patient transport. The unavoidable. The 65 dB Community Noise Equivalency level applicanVpermittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit (CNEl) contour associated with helicopter for an Emergency Medical SelVices landing Site, as provided for flights is located entirely within the project site in the California Code of Regulations, TItle 21, Section 3527, and neighboring flood control channel, and Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit allows, over any 12- does not extend to any neighboring noise- mDnth periDd, fDr no more than an average Df 6 landings per sensitive receivers. The ambient noise level at month with a patient or patients Dn the helicopter, except to existing Dccupied homes in the vicinity Df the allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, proposed heliport is approximately 57 dB even if thai response causes the site to be used beyond these CNEL Helicopter flights are not anticipated to limits. increase these ambient noise levels by 3 dB or more. Impacts associated with any single N.3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be helicopter flight will not be significant. informed of a preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast. The helipad permit to be obtained will permit up to 6 flights per month. In a worst-case condition, this level of activitv could occur. CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVlRONMENTAllhlPACT REPORT GENERAl PlAN UPDATE 1_13 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmentallmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti..,.tion Also, the preferred flight path might change for any given flight depending upon weather conditions and wind speed/direction. The noise level generated by a helicopter depends on a number of factors, including the activity (e.g., hovering,. climbing, approaching.. etc.), airspeed, power setting.. altitude, and ground conditions. Based on published data, the highest average noise levels that will occur during a hover at the helipad range from 76 to 82 dB(A) at a distance of 500 feet, depending on the orientation of the helicopter relative to the receptor. At the distance of the homes nearest the helipad (about 610 feet), the average noise level will be about 74 to 80 dB{A). Assuming that standard building construction provides 20 dB of noise reduction with windows closed, the interior noise level is expected to be about 54 to 60 dB{A). Thus, in the worst-case scenario of 6 landings per month, nearby residents could experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that could be considered annoying. (The City does not have any regulations applicable to point- source noise events.) Assuming one flight on a "worst-case" day, and that the flight hovers for one minute prior to landing or climbing, the sound exposure level for this activity would be 94 to 100 dB{A). The estimated annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4 (on a scale from o to 10). If this condition occurred up to 6 times per month, the level of short-term, periodic impact could be considered significant bv those nPrsons livio<> dosest to the hospital. ENVlRQNMENTAllMPACl REPORT TEMECUtA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECUlA. 1.14 e e e e . e Table 1-1 Summary of Environmentallmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti<>ation Even with mitigation measures to reduce helicopter night noise impacts, these impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance because of the uncertainty of the exact number of flights per month due to the unknown number of emergencies that will occur within any given month. Transportation Cumulative Impacts In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development Significant and project will be assessed ils fair share fm identified roadway Unavoidable Vehicle trips from the project and related improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the projects are anticipated to create or add to City to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation traffic congestion on Highway 79 South, programs and improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of especially near the 1-15 ramps, and at selected service at local intersections. roadway segments and intersections. The twenty-one (21) cumulative projects Increases ;n traffic generated by new development a,e generally considered within this generate a lotal of anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment 160,500 ADT with 5,560 trips in the AM peak of fair share fees and citywide and project-level roadway improvements. hour and 6,130 trips in the PM peak hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be confined to the area, while others would travel outside the project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the regional transportation system. Adverse impacts to the circulation network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction measures and programs are not implemented. The proposed project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the following roadway links will continue 10 operate over capacity: . Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkwav CfTYQFTEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENfRAlPlANUPDATE 1.15 . Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti..,.tion . Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road . Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Oartolo Road . Margarita Road: Dartalo Road to Highway 79 South Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near 1-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant and unavoidable. Potentially Significant Impacts that Can Be Avoided or Mitigated Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines Aesthetics Light and Glare A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a less than significant photometric plan has been submitled which details the The proposed project will introduce new proposed light levels for the entire project site onto adjacent sources of light and glare typically associated project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to with a hospital and medical offices (up to 6 mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and stories in height). The City is requiring the ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and project applicant to locate all ground-mounted include means to mitigate potential light impacts. lighting as far away as possible from the residences. All free-standing lighting in the A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or parking lot will be consistent with the setbacks medical office buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or set forth in the Development Code and Design tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of Guidelines. The hospital towers have the glare emitted from the upper floors. potential to emit glare from the upper floors. e fNVTRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITYOFTEMECUIA 1.16 e e . e Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti","-tion Noise - Operational Impacts less than significant. N.' Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency Mechanical Yard: The hospital's mechanical generators) is fully operational upon completion of project yard is to be located on the east side of the construction, the applicant/permittee shall conduct continuous, project site, between the helipad to the north 24-hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such and the loading docks to the south. The duty moniloring shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. equipment consists of 3 cooling lowers and 2 If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold transformers. It is estimated that the combined levels set forth in the City ofTemecula General Plan or other noise level for all the equipment is 74 dB(A) at City-adopted criteria that may be in place at the time, the 50 feet. The closest occupied noise-sensitive applicant/permittee shall implement measures to achieve the location an existing home approximately 710 thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such measures may feet to the north. include, but not be limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed appropriate by The worst-case noise-sensitive location is the a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been residential property approximately 710 feet to implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report with the the north. At this distance the estimated noise City documenting compliance. level is 51 dB{A). Over a 24-hour period, the Community Noise Equivalency level (CNEl) N.4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to will be about 58 dB. This level complies with four per day, between the hours of 7;00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. the City's standard of 65 dB. However, the equipment will increase the existing CNEl at N.S Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and the residence by 4 dB. office buildings on the site to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the General Plan. At the nearest office property to the east (a distance of about 160 feet), the (Nfl N.6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the generated by the duty equipment is estimated hours and other restrictions set forth in the City of Temecula to be 71 dB. Tllis exceeds the City's standard Municipal Code. of 70 dB. N.7 All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to Emergency Generators: On a maintenance minimize noise. test day, the two emergency generators located in the mechanical yard would generate N.8 During demolition and construction operations, the noise levels of 41 dB CNEl of at least 41 dB applicantfpermiuee shall stage all stationary equipment CNEl at the worst-case residential location 750 operations as far as possible and practical from surrounding feet to the north. However, if the generators residential properties. run continuously over a 24-hour period, the CNEl will be at least 70 dB. This exceeds the CIT'IOF TEMECULA ENVlRONMENiAL IMI'ACi REI'ORi GENERAL I'LAN UI'DAiE 1.17 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmentallmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmentallmpad Mitigation Measures level of Impact after Mitintion City's 65 dB standard. At the distance of the nearest office property to the east (about 185 feet), the (NEl will be about 53 dB on a maintenance test day, which complies with the City's standard of 70 dB. However, if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB, which exceeds the City's standard. Mechanical Equipment Room: The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the hospital building. adjacent to the mechanical yard. Based on the fact that the central plant will contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers, and boilers it is anticipated that it could produce significant impacts at nearby noise-sensitive receivers unless mitigation is incorporated into the design. Rooftop Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are also potential noise sources. However, structural designs are easily implemented in new construction, and it is anticipated that such measures will be included during the final design of the project to minimize rooftop mechanical equipment noise. Transportation 1-1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South less than significant. lhe project will result in the following opposite Country Glen Way vvith the following configuration: significant traffic impacts requiring mitigation: ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL C1TYOfTEMECUtA 1_18 e e e . . . Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmentallmpad Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after MitiGation Phase I Westbound: 1 tight turn lane 3 through lanes The following intersections will operate at LOS 1 left-turn lane E or F at Phase I of the project due to project- related or cumulative impacts: Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes 2 through Janes . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 1 shared through/right lane southbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 Northbound: 1 lefl-turn lane northbound ramps - both peak hours 1 shared through/right lane . Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes . Highway 79 SouthfPechanga 1 shared ulroughjright lane (20 feel wide) Parkway - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Redhawk T-2. TIle project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South intersection at 1-15. The following roadway links will operate at LOS E or F at Phase I of the project due to T-3. The project applicant/permittee will contribute a fair share project-related or cumulative impacts: toward the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the project's contribution toward cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway Highway 79 South/I. IS Southbound Ramps: Additional . Highway 79 South: west of Margarita southbound left-turn lane Road Highway 79 South/I-IS Northbound Ramps: Additional Project at Build-out eastbound through lane, plus convert westbound right lane to free right turn The following intersections will operate at LOS E or F at project build-out due to project- Highway 79 South/La Paz Road: Widen southbound movement related or cumulative impacts: to dual left turn lanes and one shared through/right lane . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway: Additional northbound southbound ramps - both peak hours left-turn rane, plus eastbound and northbound free right-turn . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 lanes ~~:~bound ramp~/~ both peak hours . Hi lwaV 79 South La Paz Street - CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT GENEAALPlANUPDATE 1.19 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmentallmpad Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti"ation P.M. peak Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way; . Highway 79 South/Pechanga Signalize and provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes and dual Parkway - P.M. peak southbound lefHurn lanes with a shared through/right-turn lane. . Highway 79 South/Project Provide a dedicated right-turn lane for westbound approach. Driveway/Country Glen Way - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour Highway 79 SouthJRedhawk Parkway/Margarita Road: Provide . Margarita Road/Highway 79 Soulh - southbound and eastbound dual left and right-turn traffic signal LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour overlaps. . Highway 79 SoulhJRedhawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours 1-4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portota Road developed to the specifications of the Public The following roadway links will operate at Works Director. LOS E or F at project build-out due to project- related or cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 Soulh: west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road . Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road . Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Impacts Considered but Found to Be less Than Significant Section 15128 of State CEQA Guidelines Aesthetics - Scenic Highways and Visual A.3. The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and Less than significant. Character or Quality replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project sile. The project site is not located within the Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern vicinity of a state scenic highway, does not property line and adjacent to residential parcels. include any scenic resources, is not known for its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMfCUlA RfGIONAl HOSPITAl CITY OF TEMECULA 1.20 e e e e e . Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures level of Impact after Mitil!ation To soften views and blend the development with surrounding urbanization, the preliminary landscape plan proposes numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine, Coast live Oaks, and Silk Trees along the perimeter of the site between the residences and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the buildings and mask the development of the site. Incorporation of these project features wilt help to reduce viewshed impacts. The proposed height of the hospital towers will continue to obstruct views from nearby locations. However, the views ate considered private, are not considered 10 be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or policy. Air Quality - Construction Odors and No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Consistency with Adopted plans and Policies Construction odors are typical of urbanized environments and would be subject to construction and air quality regulations, including proper maintenance of machinery to minimize engine emissions. These emissions are also of short duration and are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere. The proposed project is consistent with goals and policies within the City of T emecula General Plan. Because lhe proposed project is consistent with tbe General Plan land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements, it is assumed to be consistent with the Air Quality Master Plan (AQMP) and the development's assum....tions are included in the modelin" for ClTYOF1EMECULA ENVIRONMEN1AlIMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.21 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmentallmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mith~ation the AQMP. Hydrology and Water Quality No mitigation is required. Less than significant Temecula is a member of the Riverside County Flood Control District's Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program and therefore requires all development project applicants to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (5WPPP) to mitigate water quality impacts during storm events that occur during construction. In addition, the project applicant/permittee must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), outlining how the project will minimize water quality impacts during project operation. Due to Rancho California Water District's (RCWO) access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability to supply customers. Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet . demands by augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to sunnlv water durin\! sin~le or multinle d.rv or ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT RfPORT TEMfCULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CfTYOf TfMfCULA 1.22 e e e e e e Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mrugation Measures level of Impact after Miti2ation critically dry, years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists to support the TemecuJa Regional Hospital development as required by California Water Code section 10910. land Use and Planning No mitigation is required. less than significant Elimination of the General Plan Z2 overlay, as proposed, would eliminate building height restrictions. As a default, the standards of the applicable zone would apply. The PO zoning district has a building height limit of 75 feet. However, the applicant has submitted a PDO application with the zone change application to allow a maximum height of 115 feet for the tower structures. If approved by the City Council, no conflict between General Plan policy and zoning regulations would result. The proposed project will allow for efficient implementation of public facilities and services within the project area. Public facilities and services required to serve the project will be phased to correspond to the project's phasing. Potential jobs will be created through development and programming of the hospital and the housing for the hospital workers will be accommodated through new housing developments anticipated in the City's General Plan. The project will require approval of a planned development permit to provide for the development of the site with the uses, structures, parking. landscaping. and other CflYOf TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PlAN UPDATE 1.23 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti2ation components of the proposed development, and to provide development standards for the project. The City has stated that a key project objective is to fadlitate construction of a regional hospi!af facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City. Further, City objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping,. the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions. If approved by the City Council, the proposed General Plan Amendment and PD09 zone applicable to the site - and the development resulting from these changes to land use regulations -will be considered appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. If the City Council elecls to otherwise limit building height and/or establish additional development conditions, the Council's action indicates its determination that such regulations are appropriate for the site, considering its surroundings in light of the stated project objectives. Noise No mitigation is required. less than significant. Construction: Construction noise levels, as perceived allocations near the project site, will fluctuate depending upon the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction eauiDment, as well as the fNVlRONMENTAL IMPACT RfPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl CITY OF TfMfCULA 1-2<1 . e e e . e Table I-I Summary of Environmentallmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti2ation distance from construction activities. Short- term impacts vary in duration and are dependent upon the type of construction activity, the associated equipment used for that activity, and the project phasing. Short-term impacts for the proposed project will occur throughout each of the phases of construction and will last from 2 months for site grading to 12 months for building constructioll. At times, construction noise may cause annoyance at noise-sensitive locations in the vicinity. The Community Noise Equivalency level (CNEl) due to construction activities is expected to exceed the City's 65 dB threshold and increase Ihe ambient noise level by more Ihan 3 dB at residences localed northwest of the project. At residences located to the south, construction is also expected 10 increase Ihe CNEL above the City's 65 dB threshold. However, the impact of construction noise is considered less than significant because it will occur within the hours permitted by the Cily's Municipal Code. Ground-borne Vibration or Noise: The primary vibratory source during the construction of the project will be large bulldozers. Typical bulldozer activities generate an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB at a distance of 25 feet. At the distance of the nearest residences to the project site (about 305 feet) the estimated vibration level will be 65 VdB. This is below the threshold al which building damage occurs and below the impact criteria of 75 VdB for residenlial properties. (ITYOFTEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PlAN UPDATE 1-25 Tabl.l-l Summary of Environmentallmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mru...ation Traffic-related Noise: The proposed project will increase the traffic-generated CNEL by at most 0.5 dB. This is less than the 3 dB threshold of significance. Also, project traffic will not increase the CNEL from below the threshold of significance to above the threshold of significance at any existing medical, residential, school, agricultural, or commercial/office land use in the study area. Sirens: Maximum ambulance siren noise levels are estimated 10 be as high as 105 dB(A) at 25 feet. Although these fevels may cause some annoyance at nearby noise-sensitive receptors, noise from emergency vehicles will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time during an emergency. Loading Dock Activities: The proposed hospital will have 3 loading docks for truck deliveries. These docks are proposed to be located on the east side of the project site, south of the helipad. Once operational, the hospital will receive approximately 3 to 4 truck deliveries per day during the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. No nighttime deliveries will occur. The estimated H}-minute average noise level at the home located closest to loading dock activities is approximately 50 dB(A). This level is below the daytime stationary noise source standards. With 4 deliveries over a 24- hour period, this equates to a (Nfl of 42 dB. This level is below the daytime stationary noise source standards of 65 dB. Measurements indicate that the existing (NEl at the home is about 57 dB, so loading dock activities wilt not increase the noise level b" 3 dB or more. fNVIRONMfNTAL ~PACT RfPORT TfMfCULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TfMKULA 1-26 e e e e e e Table I-I Summary of Environmentallmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures level of Impact after Mitipation The residential parcel is designated for Professional Office (PO) use within the General Plan. Residential uses within the PO zone are allowed only by conditional use permit, and are limited to either one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business or for a senior or affordable housing project. Future development and use of these parcels are anticipated to be as professional office uses. Furthermore, there will only be 3 to 4 delivery trucks per day, and the duration of the deliveries will be short. Parking Lot Activities: Parking lot activities at the proposed hospital will vary, generally occurring throughout the day as patients and visitors arrive and leave, with potential peaks in activity when staff arrive and depart at the beginning and end of their shifts. The traffic data indicates that the busiest hour will be in the afternoon. The unmitigated 1{}.minute average noise level (leq) generated by parking lot activities is below both daytime and nighttime stationary noise source standards. Parking lot activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. In addition, this type of noise would be expected from any development occurring on this site. Trash Pickups: Noise associated with trash pickups is temporary and will not occur on a constant basis. A typical trash pickup lasts only 3 minutes on average and is a common noise source that exists throughout the community. Landscaninv/Maintenance: landscaninq and CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE \-27 . Table 1-1 Summary of Environmentollmpads and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitil!'ation maintenance activities will utilize noise- producing equipment such as lawn mowers, lawn edgers, leaf blowers, and sweepers. These types of equipment are only used occasionally, and for limited time periods. Such activities will typically be shielded from some of the noise-sensitive receivers by the hospital buildings themselves, further reducing noise levels. Furure Exterior Noise Environment: The standard of 70 dB CNEl for a hospital site is exceeded at all exterior locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane of Highway 79 South. However, no exterior useable/habitable spaces are located within this envelope. Future Interior Noise Environment: CNEL is expected to be up to 71 dB at the medical office building closest to Highway 79 South, and up to 68.5 dB at the hospital bed tower closes I to Highway 79 South. Based on a review of preliminary fat;ade construction details for the medical office and hospital buildings, it is estimated that the buildings will provide at least 21 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, the noise levels inside the buildings will comply wilh the interior CNEL standard of 50 dB. Allocalions further from the street, the estimaled CNEL will be lower lhan 50 dB. . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONA.L HOSPITAl crrYOF TEMECULA 1-28 e . . e ExeCUlive Summary Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has considered alternatives to the proposed regional hospital. Through the comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be "governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126.6[a]). The following alternatives are examined in the EIR. Alternative Considered but Rejected During the course of EIR preparation and project review, the City considered an alternative that involved reduced building heights of the hospital bed towers. This building height alternative was considered because it would meet the existing General Plan height requirement and eliminate the need to process a General Plan Amendment for the proposed height increase of the proposed project. In response to this consideration, the project architect provided a letter (contained in Appendix F of this EIR) describing functional reasons for the proposed tower heights. According to the project architect, the hospital bed towers respond to several functional needs of the hospital per the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and the California Building Code, Chapter 4A, Division III: . To establish primary relationships between Emergency Departments and Imaging, Emergency Department and Surgery, and all three departments and patient rooms . To respond to a required "vertical flow" for in-patient care and services . To respond to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development requirements for relationships between nurse stations and patient rooms . To allow for optimum patient transfer efficiencies . To provide efficiencies in mechanical and electrical systems . To anticipate future medical service needs in the area and build for them now, rather than later The City rejected the alternative of lower hospital towers from further consideration in light of project objectives and the applicant's need to achieve functional and operational efficiencies in project design. Alternative 1: No Project - No Build CEQA requires evaluation of a no project alternative, which means "...the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 [e][2]), The existing conditions on the project site are described in Section 3.0 (Project Description). The No Project Alternative assumes that site conditions would remain the same as existing conditions and no development would occur in the near future, Potential impacts associated with Alternative 1, No Project - No Build are described below. Alternative 1 would have no impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1-29 Executive Summary population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since the site would remain vacant. . This alternative would avoid the significant air quality impacts associated with the project and would not generate any additional traffic. No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with the No Project - No Build Alternative would be less than those resulting from the proposed project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, it meets none of the project objectives identified by the applicant and the City. Alternative 2: No Project - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan The No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan assumes that the project site ultimately would be developed pursuant to current General Plan land use policies, goals and policies, and zoning criteria. The site would be developed pursuant to the standards of the Professional Office (PO) General Plan designation and the applicable zoning of PO and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8), This development scenario could yield approximately 769,000 square feet of commercial and office development, based on current zoning regulations and an assumed floor-area ratio of O.S. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impacts with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project with a maximum height of SO feet, and the analysis in this Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not create significant impacts in these areas. . Impacts of Alternative 2, No Project - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan, could result in potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with helicopter operations would be avoided. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the proposed hospital project. This alternative would not attain the City's objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services nor the applicant's objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. Alternative 3: Alternate Site - Corona Family Properties Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site. Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. Alternative sites include vacant sites of approximately 35 acres in the surrounding area, similar to the project site. The feasible alternative site considered for this project includes land now owned by Corona Family L TD Partnership located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 1-30 e e e Executive Summary Highway 79 South. The site is comprised of three adjacent parcels totaling approximately 39.S acres (APN 952150003, 9.61 acres; APN 952150001, 9.56 acres; and APN 952150002, 20.34 acres). The two smaller parcels are designated within the General Plan as Community Commercial and are zoned for Community Commercial use, The larger, 20+ acre parcel is not located within the City limits, but rather adjacent to the City within the County of Riverside. The project site is within the City of T emecula General Plan planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20. All properties would need to be under the applicant's control for the project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impact with regard to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project, and all other provisions of the proposed project would be implemented. Alternative 3 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Also, Alternative 3 would require annexing a portion of the site into the City of Temecula. Noise impacts of this alternative could be greater due to slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to determine impacts. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road This alternative was conceived as a means of providing a secondary access from the east of the project site via Dartolo Road in lieu of the proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road. Alternative 4 would require the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. For Alternative 4, no access to De Portola Road would be provided, and those vehicles oriented to/from De Portola Road under the proposed project have instead been assumed to utilize Dartolo Road as an access point. Traffic and biological resource impacts of Alternative 4, Access from Dartolo Road, could be greater than those associated with the proposed project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection than are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal were removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South, as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. Additionally, the biological impacts of Alternative 4 would be greater than those of the proposed project, as the Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the project. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-31 Executive Summary This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. e Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 5 was conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in conjunction with the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road access, as described for the proposed project, would be provided with Phase I, with access limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound left-turns would be prohibited. Upon construction of Phase II, this alternative would require a third access via an extension of Dartolo Road, as described above for Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 5 would involve the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. Alternative 5 would not avoid the significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from the proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the De Portola secondary entrance. Biological resource impacts associated with Alternative 5 would be greater than those associated with the proposed project. The Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the project. This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City ofTemecula and the project applicant. . Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, Construction of the Hospital Only, would result in a smaller development with no medical office buildings, cancer center, or fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative is considered as a means to reduce the overall impact of the proposed project while still providing the community with a regional hospital. Alternative 6, similar to the proposed project, would have no significant impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a project with a reduced building footprint and less building area, and the analysis in the Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not create significant impacts in these areas.. Alternative 6 would result in reduced impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there would be a reduction in the total footprint of development. Therefore, the visual impact, trips generated by the project and short- and long-term air quality impacts would be less than those associated with the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with mechanical equipment could be reduced. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 1-32 . e e Executive Summary While Alternative 6 meets the City's objectives to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding uses, Alternative 5 fails to meet the City's objective to support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base. Furthermore, Alternative 6 does not meet applicant's objective to provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would result only in construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels of rehabilitation or any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant's objectives. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative, If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, Cumulative Impact The CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 define a cumulative impact as an "impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." The project will result in significant unavoidable project-level impacts in the following areas: . Short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts . . Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.0 of this EIR will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible, However, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, other known projects, and ambient growth will increase vehicles on area roadways. These trips will all contribute to increased pollutant loads locally and within the South Coast Air Basin as a whole. Cumulative impacts will be partially reduced by implementation and achievement of emissions levels identified in the Air Quality Management Plan and air quality components within the Temecula General Plan, However, given that the proposed project itself will result in emissions in excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds, the cumulative effect will be significant as well. Potential short- and long-term cumulative air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable despite mitigation incorporation and measures imposed on other projects. Furthermore, vehicle trips from the project and related projects are anticipated to create or add to traffic congestion on Highway 79 South, especially near the 1-15 ramps, and at selected roadway segments and intersections. The cumulative projects analyzed in the E1R generate a total of 160,500 average daily trips, with 5,560 trips in the A,M. peak hour and 6,130 trips in the P.M. peak CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-33 Executive Summary hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be confined to the area, while others would travel outside the project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the regional transportation system, Adverse impacts to the circulation network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction measures and programs are not implemented. The mitigation discussion in Section 4.6, Transportation, identifies some of the regional roadway improvements that will be pursued to accommodate anticipated future traffic volumes. Also, other roadway system enhancements will be pursued over the long term to implement the recently updated General Plan Circulation Element. . In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development project will be assessed its fair share for identified roadway improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the City to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation programs and improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections. Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment of fair share fees and citywide and project-level roadway improvements. The proposed project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the following roadway links will continue to operate over capacity: . Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road . Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road . Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near 1-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant and unavoidable. . Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved Through the Notice of Preparation process for the project, the concerns shown in Table 1-2 were raised. Additionally, at a scoping session, held on April 20, 2005 where the City received public input and testimony, the City determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential impacts identified in the attached NOP should be prepared for this project in response to resident and concerns regarding transportation, aesthetic, and noise impacts of the proposed project, and agency concerns regarding potential biological impacts associated with the extension of Dartolo Road, as described in Alternatives 4 and 5 of this EI R. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY Of TEMECULA 1-34 e e . Executive Summary Table '-2 Notice of Preparation Letters Name Me,;;:v Where Issues Are Addressed in EIR 1. Arturo Diaz Riverside County Flood Control and Encroachment Permit for lemecula Water Conservation District Creek: Section 4.3 - Hydrology and Water Quality 2. Carol Gaubatz Native American Heritage Archeological Resources: Appendix A Commission - Initial Study: Cultural Resources 3. Michael McCoy RT A - Riverside Transit Agency Public Transit Amenities: Section 4-2 Air Quality 4, Stephanie Gordin pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians Conditions of Approval: Appendix A - Initial Study: Cultural Resources Mitigation Monitoring Program In accordance with CEQA Section 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring program will be prepared for adoption by the Temecula City Council prior to certification of the Final EIR for the project. The mitigation program will be designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR, CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-35 Executive Summary This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-36 CITY OF TEMECULA . . . e e e 2.0 Introduction Purposes of the Environmental Impact Report This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term operation of the proposed T emecula Regional Hospital, also referred herein as "the project." According to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), an "EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project on the environment, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe alternatives to the project" Accordingly, this EIR is an information document to be used by decision makers, public agencies, and the general public. It is not a policy document of the City of Temecula, The document provides information regarding the potential environmental impacts related to the construction and long-term operation of the project. The EIR will be used by the City of Temecula in assessing impacts of the proposed project. If the project is approved, feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will be applied to the project during project implementation. Legal Requirements This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code, Section 21 000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) published by the Public Resources Agency of the State of California (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and in accordance with the City of Temecula's CEQA Guidelines. The City of Temecula is the lead agency for this EIR, as defined in Section 21067 of CEQA. This EIR meets the content and analysis requirements of a Project EIR, as defined in Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. A Project EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. Prior to preparing this EIR, the City of Temecula previously circulated an Initial Study (SCH # 2005031017) for this project with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was March 8, 2005 through April 6, 2005. At a public hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City heard public input and testimony and determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts should be prepared for this project. Comments received from the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed Mitigated CITY Of TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 2.' Introduction Negative Declaration have been addressed through analysis of project alternatives in this Focused e EIR. The scope of the project has not changed. This EIR was prepared by environmental planning consultants under the direction of City staff. All information, analysis, and conclusions contained in this document reflect the independent review and judgment of the City. Scope of the Project The project analyzed in this EIR is the development of a regional hospital serving the Temecula area. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. Scope of the Environmental Analysis Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for this project. The Initial Study concluded that adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan might have a significant effect on the environment with respect to the following: . Aesthetics . Hydrology and Water Quality . Noise . Transportation e Appendix A contains the Initial Study and NOP for the project. Appendix B contains water supply assessment. Appendix C contains the noise study, Appendix D contains the Traffic Study. Appendix E contains a Burrowing Owl Survey Report. Appendix F contains a letter from the project architect regarding project configuration. Appendix G contains a water supply assessment prepared for the project by the Rancho California Water District. All other reference documents cited in the EIR are on file with the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Center Drive, Temecula, CA 92589. Background A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR was issued by the City on August 3, 2005 in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375. The NOP indicated that an EIR was being prepared and invited comments on the project from public agencies and the general public. Comment letters were received from the following agencies (listed in the order received): . Native American Heritage Commission . Riverside Transit Agency . Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District . Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECUtA 2.2 e e . Introdudion Written comments received during the 30-day public review period for the NOP are included in Appendix A of this EI R. City staff has worked directly with the applicant, the surrounding property owners and representatives of the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates Home Owners Associations to identify key issues of concern. In addition, a City Council Subcommittee was formed to meet to discuss the project. The City Council subcommittee formally met with the applicant and staff on September 27, 2004 and October 11, 2004. Staff met with the Santiago Estates Home Owners Association on December 6, 2004, and held a community meeting on December 8, 2004. The community meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding home owners within 600 feet from the project site and approximately 45 residents and landowners were in attendance. At a public hearing held on April 20, 2005 to consider the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City heard public input and testimony and determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts should be prepared for this project. Public Review and Comment This Draft EIR is available for public inspection at the City of Temecula Planning Department, located at the 43200 Business Park Drive in Temecula. The Draft EIR is also available to the public at the Temecula Library, located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula. Organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the Draft EIR, Where possible, respondents are asked to provide additional information which they feel is not contained in the Draft EIR, or to indicate where information may be found. Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) quidelines outline procedures whereby a lead agency may request a shortened 30-day public review period. The City of T emecula intends to apply for a 30-day public review period for this Draft EIR, pursuant to these provisions. Following the public review period for the Draft EIR, all comments and the City's responses to those comments will be incorporated within the Final EIR prior to certification of the Final EIR by the City. Contact Person The primary contact person regarding information presented Planner. Mr. Papp may be reached at (951) emery .papp@cityoftemecula.org. in this EIR is Emery Papp, Senior 694-6400, or via em ail at CllY OF TEMECULA ENVIRQNMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 2.3 Introduction This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 2.4 . e e . . . 3.0 Project Description The Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed development of a regional hospital to serve the Temecula area. The project site encompasses 3S.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: . The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to 2 stories, The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged, . The Zone Change application requests that the zoning district applicable to the property be changed from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO- 8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 would allow a maximum building height of 11 S feet for 30% of the roof area of the hospital. . The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application requests permission to construct a 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses. . The Development Plan application proposes the construction of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000-square-foot cancer center, and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately S66, 160 square feet on the 3S.31-acre site . The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate 8 lots into a single parcel. Project Location and Surrounding Uses The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, as shown in Figure 3-1. Currently, the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they are in the process of being demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 1 S is approximately 2 miles to the west. CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3.' ................ .......... . ~ . . .x>UrCI3: County of RiVfCr5ide, ZooJ Legend Temecula City Boundary Figure 3- 1 Regional Vicinty Map ~ I-ll-l o I Miles 2 Environmentallmpoct Report Temecula Regional Hospital City of Temeculo 3-2 . e e e e . Project Description Project Objectives City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: . Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services . Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base . Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions . Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula . Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses . Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City Objectives of the Applicant The objectives of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: . Provide high-quality health services to the residents of T emecula and surrounding communities . Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices . Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors . Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures Project Characteristics Site Characteristics The project site consists of 35.31 acres of largely vacant land covered with non-native grasses and weeds, Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western CITY OF TEMECUtA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3-3 Proiect Description third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one-third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. A flood control channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows and cottonwoods. Project Design The proposed 566, 160-square-foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of: . An approximately 408,160-square-foot, 2-tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds, One tower will be 6 stories/106 feet high, and the second 5 stories/83 feet high. The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit. . Two medical office buildings, one 4 stories/73 feet high and the second 3 stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers. . A 1 O,OOO-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building, . An 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be available only to patients and on-site staff. Project components are shown on Figure 3-2. A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to 6 landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.' Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading. A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project. 1 California Code of Regulations, 1itle 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 3.4 . . e e e e """",",,""""" ,~' PARKING CALCULATIONS _oc",,",,,,,,,,",, ..' _-.....<7_ ~~..._.. :?.10;~~..... ~~...-..- :;:>10:~~_ ~':.":.... ~~~- -- .........,.........- -..........- - >' .-...,-"""'..."....-"...... ..,-.....--- -""'--''''''''-'' . ..'f!' . _"--___.=_nn """",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,._........:::-;;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,b ~ --.--..- 1! , (f> :;--.... .".Joe, II C"'''_,b :==::::-:-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::==- PHASING DESCRIPTION PHASE IA .~- ._OFFICI-..............." :=..::"'~._..ACaI PHASE 18 :=::-:=....- PHASE II ._...._....ftIfI.. PHASE III ....""'...._.l.IlU*O).I_.1 .__"'CONN!CTOII PHASE IV ._- .CAtOCiII(;fJrTIfI__ PHASE V ._- ._- " " " " " " " " Figure 3-2 Site Pion ..._~......, -....--... Project Description This page left blank intentionally. (Back side of 11 xl? figure.) ENVlRONMENTAt IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 3.6 . . e e . e Project Description Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole-mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses. Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape area. Parking and Access Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. As shown on Figure 3-2, the project includes the following three access points: 1. Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location 2. Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portal a Road will not be permitted. 3. Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized, Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3-story, 60,000-square-foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, , as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of the 5-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet Phase III will add a 4-story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 1O,OOO-square-foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3.' Project Description Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000-square-foot fitness center and the jogging trail. . Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated occur concurrently and to last approximately 12 months. As shown on Figure 3-2, the total parking spaces provided will be 1,278 which exceeds the City's parking standards, which require 663 parking spaces for the proposed project. The greatest exceedance is associated with parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for which the Development Code requires one space per 3 beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained within the Development Code because the Code requirements do not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common within most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason.' In summary, the proposed building heights and parking spaces that will be provided for the hospital facility are as follows: . Hospital - 1 story/27 feet (644 parking spaces and 42 handicapped spaces hospital and bed towers) . Bed Tower 1 - 6 stories/106 feet . Bed Tower 2 - 5 stories/83.5 feet . MOB #1 - 4 stories/73 feet (280 parking spaces and 16 handicapped spaces) . MOB #2 - 3 stories/60 feet (233 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces) . Cancer Center - 1 story/27 feet (S5 parking spaces and 4 handicapped spaces) . Fitness Center - 1 story/27 feet (66 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces) Project Actions and Approvals . While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in the EIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the non-hospital facilities. The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals. Agency City of Temecula City Council Action . Approval of General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay shown in the General Plan, an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning from Planned Development Overlay (PDO) 8 and Professional Office to PDO-9, and the incorporation of PDO-9 into the Temecula Municipal Code with will allow building height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospitals .. .. 2 Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. - Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY Of TEMECULA 3.6 Project Description e Agency Action . Approval of a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to provide for the development of the project site with the proposed uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components, and to establish development standards and conditions of use for the project-- . Approval of other actions related to the implementation of the above actions and mitigation of environmental effects . Medical Office Building and fitness center building and occupancy permits . Adoption of the Focused EIR California Office of Statewide Health . Hospital building and occupancy permits Planning and Development City of T emecula Fire Department . Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire suppression systems City of T emecula Police Department . Review of security plans and systet]1s . City ofTemecula Public Works . Approval of Mitigation Plan . Approval of street improvement plans, sewer plans, grading plan, and water and drainage system plans . Approval of Water Quality Management Plan City of T emecula Departments and . Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing, Divisions overseeing construction mechanical, and sign plans and permits related development . Review and approval of encroachment permits . Review and approval of street trees U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service . Approval of Burrowing Owl report/surveys California Department of Fish and Game California Department of . Approval of special use helipad (Heliport Site Approval Transportation, Aeronautics Division Permit) Riverside County Airport Land Use . Review of helipad Commission Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians . Cultural report approval and pre-excavation agreement e CITY OF TEMECULA ENYlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT 3.9 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Project Description Agency Action e Regional Water Quality Control Board . Possible review and approval of stormwater permits Rancho California Water District . Possible review and approval water service permits Riverside County Flood Control . Possible review and approval of permits Riverside County Health Department . Possible review and approval of permits U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . Possible review and approval of permits Alternatives to the Project CEQA requires that the EIR address project alternatives that are capable of reducing or eliminating the significant effects associated with the project. The three project alternatives analyzed in Section 5.0 of this EI Rare: 1. No Project: CEQA requires that the No Project alternative be addressed. In this instance, No Project means development of the site pursuant to the commercial zoning on the site, which would mean a large commercial center. 2. No Project - no build: This alternative considers the land remains vacant. The site would remain as undeveloped open space. e 3. Alternate Site - Corona Family Properties: This alternative considers development of the project at a site that is generally located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South. This alternative will assess whether relocating the project to another area of the City has the potential to reduce impacts 4. Access from Dartolo Road - As an alternative to providing secondary access via the planned driveway at De Portola Road, this alternative examines extending Dartolo Road west toward the project site, over a flood control channel, to link the site directly to Margarita Road. S. Access from Dartolo Road and De Portola Road - This alternative enhances the secondary access using both the planned driveway at De Portola Road and by extending Dartolo Road west toward the project site, over a flood control channel, to link the site directly to Margarita Road. 6. Construction of the Hospital Only - This alternative examines the project as the development of the hospital and hospital towers only, The alternative would not include the development of the cancer center, fitness rehabilitation center, or the medical office buildings, e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECUtA 3.10 e 4.0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses each of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts determined to be potentially significant in the EIR analysis. Each environmental issue is discussed in the following manner. Environmental Setting describes the existing conditions in the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, to provide a baseline for comparing before the project and after the project environmental conditions. e Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact defines and lists specific criteria used to determine whether an impact is or is not considered to be significant. The CEQA Guidelines; local, state, federal or other standards applicable to that impact category; and officially established thresholds of significance are the major sources used in crafting criteria appropriate to the specifics of the project, because "...an ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with selling" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[bJ). Principally ",..a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project, including land, air, water, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance..." constitutes a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15382). Environmental Impact presents evidence, based on available data, about the cause and effect relationship between the proposed project and the potential changes in the environment. The exact magnitude, duration, extent, frequency, range, or other parameters of a potential impact are ascertained to the extent possible to provide facts in support of finding the impact to be or not to be significant. In determining whether an impact may be significant, all the potential effects, including direct effects, reasonably foreseeable indirect effects, and considerable contributions to cumulative effects (see Section 4.0), were considered. Mitigation Measures identify the means by which a potentially significant adverse impact could be reduced or avoided. Standard existing regulations, requirements, and procedures that are applied to all similar projects are taken into account in identifying what additional project- specific mitigation may be needed to reduce significant project-related impacts, Mitigation, in addition to measures that the lead agency will implement, can also include measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091 [a][2J). e Level of Significance after Mitigation indicates what effect will remain after application of mitigation measures, and whether the remaining adverse effect is or is not considered significant. When an adverse impact, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be mitigated to a level considered less than significant, it is identified as an unavoidable significant impact of the proposed project. In order to approve a project with significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). In adopting an sac, the lead agency find that it has reviewed the EIR, has balanced the benefits ,., ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA Environmenta/fmpacts and Mitigation Measures of the project against its significant adverse effects, and has concluded that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects, and thus, the environmental effects may be considered acceptable (CEQAGuidelines, Section lS093[aJl. ENV1RONMENTAlIMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL C1lY OF TEMECUtA o e . e . . . 4. 1 Aesthetics This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, or create new sources of light and glare and if so, how such light sources may affect uses within the project area and regional facilities such as the Palomar Observatory. Also, because the project includes a proposed General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay, which limits building heights to 2 stories, this section examines the related effect of allowing taller structures on the site. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the project will result in a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. The term "aesthetics" usually implies a subjective effect or personal opinion. To the extent possible, this section attempts to minimize the subjective component of the evaluation of these impacts by considering information about the project that can be evaluated objectively, such as a structure's effects on existing scenic view corridors, visual character, and the impact of artificial light generated by the project. Visual character is measured in terms of mass and scale. These terms are defined as follows:' Mass - Describes three-dimensional forms, the simplest of which are cubes, boxes, cylinders, pyramids, and cones. Buildings are rarely one of these simple forms, but generally are composite of varying types of masses. Scale - Is the measurement of the relationship of one object to another object. The scale of a building can be described in terms of its relationship to a human being. All of the components of a building also have a relationship to each other and to the building as a whole. Generally, the scale of the building components also relates to the scale of the entire building. Environmental Setting The project site fronts on Highway 79 South within a developed area of the City of Temecula. The site terrain is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward De Portola Avenue. The elevation at the center of the site is approximately 1,053 above mean sea level, and the elevation at De Portola Road is approximately 1,065 feet. North of De Portola Road, the terrain transitions to rolling hillsides, with the highest elevation above De Portola Road in the project vicinity rising to approximately 1,223 feet, providing views over the site to south Temecula and the Palomar Mountains in the background. Very-low-density residential development (2.5 acre minimum) exists within the rolling hills to the north. The residential area is elevated above the project site. Commercial development has occurred across Highway 79 South from the project site and immediately east of the site as well. To the immediate west is a vacant parcel, adjacent to which is a church complex currently under construction. All of the remaining vacant land in the immediate project vicinity is zoned and I Parker, John. H. A Concise Dictionary of Architectural Terms. Dover Publications. June, 2004. CITY OF TfMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4.3 Aesthetics designated as Professional Office (PO) or Planned Development Overlay (PDO); no designated open space is located near the project. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is considered an in-fill development site. . Neither Highway 79 South nor any other roadway in the project vicinity is designated a Scenic Highway in the Temecula General Plan or by any state agency. The General Plan does not identify any view corridors or areas of special visual significance in the project vicinity. The City of Temecula Municipal Code does not contain any view protection regulations. Virtually all of the City of Temecula lies within 45 miles of the Mount Palomar Observatory. To protect Observatory operations, the City has adopted Riverside County's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 6S5), which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of the facility.' Threshold Used to Determine level of Impact The proposed project will result in a significant adverse impact related to aesthetics, if it will: . Substantially degrade scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway . Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, either directly or due to changes in land use and development regulations e . Create a new source of substantial light and glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area Environmental Impact State Scenic Highway The project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway, as designated by the California Department of Transportation.' According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site does not include any scenic resources, is not known for its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources, Development of the project will result in a less than significant impact. 2 County of Riverside. Outdoor Lighting Regulations - Ordinance 655. Effective July 6, 1988. Adopted by the City of T emecula on February 13, 1990. 3 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. huo://www.dot.ca.gov/ha/landArch/scenic highways/ Date accessed: August 11, 2005. ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA e 4.4 . . . Aesthetics Visual Character or Quality The residential areas north of the project site offer distant views to the south of the Palomar Mountains, with closer views overlooking the vacant project site and developed areas surrounding the site (see photograph in Figure 4-2a). At closer locations, the site appears as a vacant property with introduced landscaping and native vegetation (see photo in Figure 4-3a), The view along Highway 79 South consists of a developed and developing arterial roadway corridor, with low- and moderate-rise structures and well-landscaped frontage areas. The proposed project will include: . A 60,000-square-foot, 3-story medical office building (60 feet high) . An BO,OOO-square-foot 4-story medical office building (73 feet high) . A 408, 160-square-foot hospital structure, including towers of 5 and 6 stories (up to 106 feet high) . A 10,000-square-foot, single-story cancer center . An 8,000-square-foot, single-story fitness rehabilitation center. The structures will be located toward the center of the site, surrounded by surface parking lots with extensive landscaping. Per Development Code regulations, all setback areas will be landscaped as well. To identify potential view/aesthetic impacts from locations in the project vicinity, photographs were taken from locations within the residential neighborhood overlooking the site and adjacent to the site on Pio Pico Road. Figure 4-1 shows the two locations from where photographs were taken for this aesthetics analysis, The proposed project was digitally modeled onto the photographs based on renderings provided by the project architect. The proposed project will be visible from various residential lots north of the project site, as illustrated in the photograph in Figure 4-2b. However, the views are considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or policy. While the hospital/medical complex will be apparently taller than surrounding development, it will appear as infill development. As seen in Figure 4-2a, while the project site can seen from residential areas to the north, particularly in comparison from the existing view, views of Palomar Mountain will not be blocked by the proposed project. The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent residences to the north is greater than the elevation of the pad areas of the project site. Therefore, the building height will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the residences to the north. To soften views and blend the development with surrounding urbanization, the preliminary landscape plan proposes numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine, Coast Live Oaks, and Silk Trees along the perimeter of the site between the residences and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the buildings and mask the development of the site (refer to the photograph in Figure 4-3b). Incorporation of these project features will help to reduce viewshed impacts. The proposed height of the hospital towers will continue to obstruct views from nearby locations. However, because the views are considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or policy, impact will be less than significant. CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4.5 1'0, ~o\'lJ. oe1('O 19 s,o\.l.\l\ ;\i9\\""'I Sources; County or Rivcr$idl!. Z003 Legend A< B< ~ View from hillside View from Pio Pico Road Project Site Boundary Temecula City Boundary Environmental Impact Report Temecula Regional Hospital 1--11--1 o .25 . ".. . I Miles .5 Figure 4- 1 Photo Locations . 4_6 City o/Temeculo e . . This page is left intentionally blank. Aesthetics 4.' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECUIA Aesthetics . e Existing view of the site looking south from the hillside above De Portola Road Figure 4-2a Location A - View from Hillside without Project ENVIRONMENTAlIMPA(l REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA e 4.8 . . . Aesthetics Proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Figure 4-2 b Location A - View from Hillside with Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4.9 Aesthetics . . Existing view of the site looking south from Pio Pico Road Figure 4-3a Location B - View from Pio Pico Road without Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA . 4-10 e e e Aesthetics Proposed T emecula Regional Hospital with project landscaping Figure 4-3b Location B - View from Pio Pico Road with Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-11 Aesthetics Project architecture is to consist of a Spanish-style architecture for all buildings. Building design will e feature the use of earth-toned stucco, terra colla tile roof, bronze-tinted glass, and Indian red tile at the base. The two hospital towers will be divided by an octagon-roofed rotunda. The architectural design of the proposed project is consistent with the visual character and quality of the surrounding development. The proposed terra colla tile roofs will minimize the visual impact of the new buildings by matching the visual character of surrounding roof tops (Figure 4-2b). Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25-foot-wide bermed landscape strip along Highway 79 South, consisting of California Pepper trees, Sycamores, and assorted shrubs. As noted above, the frontage areas along DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line will consist of Afghan Pines and Silk Trees, which are evergreens. A SO-foot-wide swath along the western property line will be planted with assorted street trees, and an informal planting of natural turf and assorted trees is proposed along the eastern property line. Overall, the site will include approximately 176 trees, The primary issues of concern with regard to building height and views are the 2 hospital towers that are 5 and 6 stories, respectively. Currently, through the Z2 overlay designation, the ~eneral Plan limits buildings on the site to a maximum of 2 stories. The project applicant prop ses to amend the ~eneral Plan to remove the Z2 overlay, and to change the zone from Professional Office and DePort la Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-B) to Temecula Hospital Planned Developmen Overlay (PDO-9). The PDO-9 zone would specifically allow structures up to 115 feet in height. (The site plan indicates a maximum anticipated hospital tower height of 106 feet. The PDO-9 zone proposes a 115-foot height limit to account for adjustments as part of the final design process and to accommodate any needed parapet walls or similar roof-top treatments.) Due to the proposed change in land use regulations and as proposed by the site plan, the project will result in . development of a 5-story hospital building and a 6-story building, as shown in Figures 4-2b and 4-3b. The project will result in a more intense use of the site than is allowed by current land use regulations. The increased building height regulation and any development pursuant to it have the potential to change the visual character of the site. ~iven the lower-scale character of development that currently exists in the area, this degree of change\ is potentially significant. As stated in the project description (see 5ection 3.0 of this EIR), the project requires approval of a planned development permit to provide for development of the site with the uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components of the proposed development, and to provide development standards for the project. The primary changes that would occur as a result of the new proposed Planned Development Overlay (PDO) and the Development Plan would be a change to the building height limit. The proposed PDO text clarifies the allowances for increased building height on the site as follows: The development standards set forth in Section 17.08 for the Professional Office Zone shall apply to this PDO with the exception of the following, No more than 30% of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 7S-foot maximum building heightlimi!. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area may not exceed 115 fee!. For the purposes of this Section, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines the roof area. The project applicant has stated that the design of the hospital is primarily based on internal functional relationships, The various uses and functions inside of the building must be located adjacent to other critical uses. This includes care rooms, treatment facilities, and equipment, as well CITY OF TEMECULA e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL 4-12 e e . Aesthetics as elevators, stairs, and window placement. With the form follows function concept in mind, the design of the buildings is limited in what can be changed in regard to tower location, layout and movement (or relocation) of functioning areas. As noted in a letter from the project architect (included as Appendix F to this EIR), the proposed design of the hospital is essential to meeting the project objectives, According to the applicant, the proposed qeneral Plan Amendment and zone change to allow planned heights of the hospital bed towers respond to the following functional needs of the hospital: . To establish primary relationships between Emergency Departments and Imaging, Emergency Department and Surgery, and all three departments and patient rooms . To respond to a required "vertical flow" for in-patient care and services . To respond to Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development requirements for relationships between nurse stations and patient rooms . To allow for optimum patient transfer efficiencies . To provide efficiencies in mechanical and electrical systems . To anticipate future medical service needs in the area and build for them now, rather than later The City has stated that a key project objective is to facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City. Further, City objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions (see page 3-3 of this EIR). The hospital bed towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site. The nearest tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and approximately 630 feet from De Portal a Road, Extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided. As shown in Figures 4-2b and 4-3b, the proposed architecture blends with the colors and styles used on buildings in the vicinity. These project features will minimize any potentially significant visual effect and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. If approved by the City Council, the proposed qeneral Plan Amendment and PDO-9 zone applicable to the site - and the development resulting from these changes to land use regulations - will be considered appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. If the City Council elects to otherwise limit building height and/or establish additional development conditions, the Council's action indicates its determination that such regulations are appropriate for the site, considering its visual character, quality, and surroundings in light of the stated project objectives. Therefore, with either action, impact will be less than significant. light and Glare As noted above, in support of Palomar Observatory operations, the City adopted Riverside County's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655), which restrict nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of the facility. The project site is located within the 45- CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-13 Aesthetics mile radius (Zone B) of the Observatory. Within Zone B, the use of most types of outdoor lighting . is prohibited after 11 :00 P.M., and outdoor lighting must be shielded and focused on the object to be illuminated. Decorative lighting is allowed; however, decorative lighting is required to be shut off by 11 :00 P.M. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11 :00 P.M., the amount of light and/or glare will be reduced during late evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research at the Mount Palomar Observatory. The ordinance also establishes the type of lighting that may be used in Zones B, such as low-pressure sodium lighting. The ordinance provides exemptions for holiday decorative lights and nonconforming uses. The project site is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare, The proposed project will introduce new sources of light and glare typically associated with a hospital and medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The proposed project will be' required to comply with the City of T emecula Design Guidelines, Development Code, and Ordinance 655. The Development Code and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of 1-foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading, and circulation areas, and a minimum of 2-foot candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 65S. The City is requiring the project applicant to locate all ground- mounted lighting as far away as possible from the residences. All free-standing lighting in the parking lot will be consistent with the setbacks set forth in the Development Code and Design Guidelines, The hospital towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors, However, as indicated in the mitigation measure described below, all windows above the second floor will have _ glazing and/or tinting to reduce the glare. Glazing and/or tinting will reduce the illumination and/or .. glare from the proposed project. Compliance with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code, and Ordinance 655, and implementation of the mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant impact. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMfCULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA e 4.14 AeSlhelics e Mitigation Measures A-l. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed light levels for the entire project site onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate potential light impacts, A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare emitted from the upper floors. A-3, The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site. Such landscaping treatment may include decorative walls. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels, level of Impact after Mitigation e With mitigation, impact will be less than significant. e 4.15 ENV1RONMENTAlIMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA Aesthetics This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-16 CITY OF TEMECULA . e e . e e 4.2 Air Quality This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Air quality worksheets are included in Appendix B of this EIR. Environmental Setting Temecula lies within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin is a 6,600-square-mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains on the north and east. The Basin includes the non-desert portions of Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. Within the Basin, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for air quality monitoring and stationary source control. The topography and climate of Southern California combine to create an area of high air pollution potential in the Basin. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean's surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cup over the cool marine layer, which prevents pollution from dispersing upward. This inversion allows pollutants to accumulate within the lower layer. Light winds during the summer further limit ventilation from occurring. Due to the low average wind speeds in the summer and a persistent daytime temperature inversion, emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have an opportunity to combine with sunlight in a complex series of reactions. These reactions produce a photochemical oxidant commonly known as "smog." Since the Basin experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the United States, except Phoenix, the smog potential in the region is higher than in most other major metropolitan areas in the country, Climate and Meteorology The climate in and around Temecula, as well as most of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This high- pressure cell produces a typical Mediterranean climate with warm summers, mild winters, and moderate rainfall. This pattern is infrequently interrupted by periods of extremely hot weather brought in by Santa Ana winds. Almost all precipitation occurs between November and April, although during these months, it is sunny or partly sunny a majority of the time. Cyclic land and sea breezes are the primary factors affecting the region's mild climate. The daytime winds are normally sea breezes, predominantly from the west, that flow at relatively low velocities. Within the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone, located north of Temecula and south of Lake Elsinore, coastal winds often block air pollutants originating from the rest of the Basin from entering the Temecula Valley. CITY Of TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-17 Air Quality Air Pollution Control Effects . Both the federal and state governments have set health-based ambient air quality standards for the following 6 pollutants: . Sulfur dioxide (SO,) . Lead (Pb) . Carbon monoxide (CO) . Fine particulate matter (PMlO) Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,) Ozone (03) . . The standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort with a margin of safety. The California standards are more stringent than federal standards and in the case of PMlO and sulfur dioxide, far more stringent. Table 4-1 outlines current federal and state ambient air quality standards. Despite the existence of many strict controls, the South Coast Air Basin still fails to meet federal air quality standards for 2 of the 6 criteria pollutants including 03 and PMlO. Because lead-based gasoline has been phased out of California, airborne lead pollution is no longer a problem in the Basin, nor is sulfur dioxide pollution. Nearly all pollution control programs developed to date have relied on the development and application of cleaner technology and add-on emissions control devices to clean up vehicular and industrial sources, such as catalytic converters for automobiles, Recent efforts include new programs monitoring high-emitting vehicles and industries (e.g., the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program and mandatory maintenance procedures on industrial sources), and attempts to reduce overall vehicle activity (e.g. High Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] lanes). e Past air quality programs have been effective in improving the Basin's air quality. Although the magnitude of the problem depends heavily on the weather conditions in a given year, and improvements can only be compared for the same air monitoring station, ozone levels have declined by almost half over the past 30 years. However, ozone levels within the Basin remain at or near the top of all pollution concentrations within urban areas in the United States. Air Quality Monitoring The nearest air quality monitoring station to Temecula is located at Lake Elsinore, Table 4-2 shows monitored air quality for CO, 03, and NO, at the Lake Elsinore station. The data indicates that state standards are rarely exceeded for CO or NOx, yet frequently exceeded for 03, PMlO measurements are not taken at the Lake Elsinore station. The nearest air quality monitoring station for PMlO is located in the Perris Valley. Table 4-3 shows the maximum concentrations of PMlO and the number of days samples exceeded state standards at the Perris Valley station. However, both of these air quality monitoring stations are north of the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone and do not accurately reflect local air quality conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY Of TEMECULA e 4-18 e Air Quality Table 4-1 Air Pollution Sources, Effects, and Standards Air Pollutant Ozone (0,) Federal Primary Standard 0.12 ppm, l-hour average; 0.08 ppm, B-hour average 9.0 ppm, 8-hour average; 35 ppm, l-hour average State Standard 0.09 ppm, l-hour average Carbon Monoxide (CO) 9.0 ppm, 8-hour average; 20 ppm, 1- hour average Nitrogen 0.25 ppm, l-hour 0.053 ppm, annual Oxides average average (NO,) Sulfur 0.25 ppm, l-hour aver- 0.03 ppm, annual Dioxide age; 0.05 ppm, 24-hour average; 0.14 (50,) average with ozone> = ppm, 24-hour 0.10ppm,1 hour average average or TSP > = 100 e IJgJm3, 24-hour average Respirable 30 IJgjm3, annual SOlJgJm3, annual Particulate geometric mean; > 50 arithmetic mean; Matter lJgJm3, 24-hour average 150 ~gJm', 24- (PM,,) hour average Fine No Separate State 65 ~gJm', 24.hour Particulate Standard average; 1S IJgfm3 Matter annual arithmetic (PM ,,) mean Lead 1.5 ~gJm', 30-day 1.5 ~gJm', average calendar quarter . Sufficient to reduce visual range to less than 10 miles at relative humidity less than 70%, 8-hour average (9am - Spm) IJgJm3 "" micrograms per cubic meter of air; ppm = parts per million parts of air, by volume. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 2001 (Version 3) update. Visibility Reducing Particles None Sources Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with nitrogen oxides in sunlight. Incomplete combustion of fuels and other carbon- containing substances such as motor vehicle exhaust; natural events, such as decomposition of organic matter. Motor vehicle exhaust; high-temperature stationary combustion; atmospheric reactions. Combustion of sulfur- containing fossil fuels; smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores; industrial processes_ Stationary combustion of solid fuels; construction activities; industrial processes; industrial processes, atmospheric chemical reactions. Combustion sources such as automobiles, trucks, and stationary sources; atmospheric chemical reactions. Contaminated soil. Primary Effects Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases; irritation of eyes; impairment of cardiopulmonary function; plant leaf injury. Reduced tolerance for exercise; impairment of mental function; impairment of fetal development; death at high levels of exposure; aggravation of some heart diseases (angina); reduced visibility. Aggravation of respiratory illness; reduced visibility; reduced plant growth; formation of acid rain. Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema); reduced lung function; irritation of eyes; reduced visibility; plant injury; deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, ete. Reduced lung function; aggravation. of the effects of gaseous pollutants; aggravation of respiratory and cardia-respiratory diseases; increased coughing and chest discomfort; soiling; reduced visibility Increased mortality; reduced lung function; aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants; aggravation of respiratory and cardia-respiratory diseases; increased coughing and chest discomfort. Increased body burden; impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction; behavioral and hearing problems in children. Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-19 Air Quality Table 4-2 Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded lake Elsinore Station Carbon Monoxide' Ozone2 Oxides of Nitrogen' Maximum Maximum Maximum 8-hour *Days l-hour *Days l-hour *Days concentration standard concentration standard concentration standard Year (ppm) exceeded (ppm) exceeded (ppm) exceeded 1997 - - 0.16 49 0.11 0 1998 - - 0.17 52 0.09 0 1999 - - 0.14 51 0.11 0 2000 2.0 0 0.13 45 0.08 0 2001 2.0 0 0.151 61 0.09 0 2002 2,0 0 0.139 52 0.07 0 2003 1.3 0 0.154 50 0,08 0 2004 0.9 0 0.130 41 0,06 0 * Number of days state standard was exceeded in calendar year. ppm=parts per million parts of air, by volume I State standard for carbon monoxide: 20 ppm l-Hour; 9.0 ppm 8-Hour 2 State standard for ozone: 0.09 ppm l-Hour 3 State standard for nitrogen dioxide: 0.25 ppm l-Hour Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Data 1990-2004. Table 4-3 PM,o Measurements Perris Valley Station Maximum Days (% of) Samples Exceeding Year Concentration (. !;fm') California standard* 1997 139 19 (31.7) 1998 98 14 (26.4) 1999 112 30 (50) 2000 87 13(22) 2001 86 16 (27) 2002 100 24 (39.3) 2003 142 19 (32,8) 2004 83 15 (25.4) . ~m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air *State standard for PMlO >50 . ~/m3, 24-hour. Collected every 6 days. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Data 1990-2004. ENVIRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY Of TEMECULA 4.20 e e e . . e Air Quality Sensitive Receptors SCAQMD identifies sensitive receptors as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors located in or near the vicinity of known air emissions sources, including freeways and intersections, are of particular concern. Sensitive receptors are located in close proximity to the project area and include the foliowing: . Residential developments surrounding the site except for the commercial property located west-southwest . Nine primary schools, 2 middle schools and 3 high schools within 2 miles of the site . Two parks within 2 miles of the site . There are no hospitals, care facilities, or day-care facilities within 2 miles of the site. Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots Carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots, or areas where carbon monoxide is concentrated, typically occur near congested intersections, parking garages, and other spaces where a substantial number of vehicles remain idle. Petroleum-powered vehicles emit carbon monoxide, an unhealthy gas (see Table 4-1), which disperses based on wind speed, temperature, traffic speeds, local topography, and other variables. As vehicles idle in traffic congestion or in enclosed spaces, CO can accumulate to create CO hot spots that can impact sensitive receptors, Toxic Air Pollutants Toxic air pollutants, such as asbestos, can be emitted during the demolition of buildings that contain toxic contaminants, and during the operation of certain industrial processes that utilize toxic substances. Federal and state governments have implemented a number of programs to control toxic air emissions. For example, the federal Clean Air Act provides a program for the control of hazardous air pollutants, In addition, the California legislature enacted programs including the Tanner Toxics Act (Health and Safety Code Section 25300 et. seq.), the Air Toxics Hot Spot Assessment Program (Health and Safety Code Section 44300 el. seq.), the Toxics Emissions Near Schools Program (Public Resources Code Section 211 S 1.8), and the Disposal Site Air Monitoring Program (Health and Safety Code Section 41800 et. seq.). SCAQMD has developed and implements rules to control emissions of toxic air pollutants from specific sources. These include Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants), which requires certain businesses to obtain a permit to emit toxic air pollutants, and Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Renovation/Demolition Activities), which regulates asbestos emissions during construction activities. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-21 Air Quality Related Plans and Programs . Air Quality Management Plan The 2003 AQMP updates the demonstration of attainment with thefFederal standards for ozone and PM", replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard, provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future, and updates the maintenance plan for the Federal nitrogen dioxide (NO,l standard that the Basin has met since 1992. The 2003 AQMP proposes policies and measures to achieve federal and state standards for healthful air quality in the Basin. The revision to the Plan also addresses several state and federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air quality modeling tools. This Plan is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to the Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin. However, this revision points to an urgent need for additional emissions reductions (beyond those incorporated in the 1997/99 Plan) to offset increased emissions estimates from mobile sources and to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. Thresholds Used to Determine level of Impact The project will result in a significant adverse impact on air quality if its lorig-term operational _ emissions, due to combined stationary and vehicular emissions, result in any of the following: _ . Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation . Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant . Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations . Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable regional and/or local Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The SCAQMD has established air pollutant emiSSion thresholds to assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the construction or operation of a project results in significant impacts. If the lead agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these thresholds, the project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality. These thresholds are summarized in Table 4- 4. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4.22 e . e Table 4-4 SCAQMD Thresholds for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution Pollutant Threshold of Significant Effect Operation Phase Construction Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 55 Ibsfday 75 Ibsfday, 2.5 tonsfquarter Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 551bsfday 100 Ibsfday, 2.5 tons/quarter Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 Ibsfday 550 Ibsfday, 24.75 tonsfquarter Fine Particulate Matter (PM,,) 150 Ibsfday 150 Ibsjday, 6.75 tons/quarter Sulfur Oxides (502) 150 Ibs/day 150 Ibsfday, 6.75 tonsfquarter Source: CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District May, 1993 with updates through 2001. Environmental Impact Air quality impacts associated with the proposed project can be classified as either short-term or long-term impacts. Short-term impacts result from construction activities, and long-term impacts are associated with daily activities at the hospital and medical office buildings and the daily vehicle trips to and from the facilities. Short-Term Impacts Development of the proposed project will result in the addition of approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital building and other medical facilities on the 35.31-acre site. Construction of the proposed project will generate pollutant emissions from the following activities: demolition, grading and paving operations; travel by construction workers to the site; delivery and hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project sites; fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; the application of architectural coatings and asphalt that release reactive organic gases (ROq); and dust (PMlO) generation from construction vehicle travel. Short-term impacts vary in durat;on and are dependent upon the type of construction activity, the associated equipment used for that activity, and the project phasing. Short-term impacts for the proposed project will occur throughout each of the five phases of construction and will last from 2 months for site grading to 12 months for building construction, Estimated daily construction-related emissions for the proposed project are presented in Table 4-5. As shown, construction activity will produce daily emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NO, and RO~. The NO, emissions are primarily attributable to exhaust from construction vehicles, and the RO~ emissions are primarily from the application of architectural coatings. The emissions of these pollutants are considered to produce a significant adverse short- term regional air quality impact because the levels of these emissions are projected to exceed SCAQMD air pollutant significance thresholds. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-23 Table 4-5 Daily Construction Emissions lin pounds per day) . Pollutants (Ibs/day) Emissions Source ROG NOx CO PM.. SO, Demolition Emissions 11.66 91.55 86,18 4.73 0.03 Site Qrading Emissions 41.91 282.81 338.51 129.67 0.01 Mitigated Site Qrading Emissions 41.91 282.81 338.51 53.80 0.01 Building Construction Emissions 223.91 216.46 317.50 8.17 0 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 Exceed Thresholds? YES YES NO NO NO Source: P&D Consultants in August 2005 using the URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model. Note: Balded values denote an exceedance of threshold. Assumptions: The total construction for the project was assumed to begin January 2006 and terminate in December 201 O. The default values in URBEMIS2002 were used to determine timing for each individual phase of construction (demolition, site grading, building construction). Construction Odor Impacts The proposed project has the potential to create objectionable odors during construction. Some odors may be associated with the operation of diesel engines during site preparation. However, these odors are typical of urbanized environments and would be subject to construction and air quality regulations, including proper maintenance of machinery to minimize engine emissions, These emissions are also of short duration and are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere. Therefore, the project will not create significant objectionable odor impacts during construction. . long-Term Impacts Air pollutant emissions associated with project operations will be generated due to the consumption of electricity and natural gas (so-called stationary sources) and by the operation of on- road vehicles (mobile sources). Because it is not possible to isolate geographically where production of electric power occurs, these emissions are considered to be regional in nature. Emissions of criteria pollutants associated with the production of energy were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Project-related operational emissions for on-road mobile sources and stationary sources are summarized in Table 4-6. e 4-24 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA e . e Air Quality Table 4-6 Operational Phase Regional Emissions (in pounds per day) Pollutants (Ibs/day) ROG NOx CO PM,. Area Source Emissions 8.39* 3.79 4.43 0.01 Vehicular Source Emissions 85.73 94.69 1,139.90 123,28 Total 94.11 98.48 1,144.33 123.29 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 Exceed Thresholds? YES NO YES NO Source: P&D Consultants in August 2005 using the URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model. Note: Balded values denote an exceedance of threshold. *94% of RO~ is from architectural coatings and will be mitigated by measure AQ-14. Emissions Source SO, o 0,86 0.86 150 NO As illustrated in Table 4-6, regional emissions from the operation of the proposed project are estimated to produce air pollutant emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO and RO<1' As such, regional emissions associated with the operational phase of the project will result in a significant adverse air quality impact related to RO<1 and CO. CO Operational Impacts Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO concentrations called "hotspots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the state I-hour standard of 20,0 parts per million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. As shown in Table 4-2, ambient CO concentrations at the nearest air monitoring station are less than 2.0 ppm and have been holding steady for the years studied. To identify CO hotspots, the SCAQMD methodology recommends performing a CO hotspot analysis when a project increases the volume to capacity ratio for any intersection with an existing level of service (LOS) D or worse. Due to the low ambient CO concentrations and because the project will not create any significant impacts at the studied intersections, a CO hotspot analysis is not warranted. Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies With respect to determining project consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAGJ air quality policies, it must be recognized that air quality planning in the Svuth Coast Air Basi~ focuses on the attainment of the ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date, The SCAQMD CEQA emissions thresholds for construction and operational phase emissions are designed to identify those projects that would result in significant levels of pollutants, as well as promote the attainment of the California ambient air quality standards and national ambient air quality standards, General Plans are used to assist in development of the AQMP, which provides the framework for a\tainment of the ambient air quality standards and national ambient air quality standards. The T emecula Hospital project proposes development on the project site with at an intensity greater than the 2-story building height limit established in the General Plan land Use Element for this site. However, the proposed hospital and medical uses involv~ a total of 566,160 square feet of building CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-25 Air Quality area, whereas a commercial development constructed pursuant to current land use regulations . could yield up to 769,OS9 square feet based on an assumed Floor Area Ratio of 0.5, More to the point, the proposed uses would generate 65% fewer vehicle trips than the commercial uses on the site assumed in the qeneral Plan (see discussion of Alternative 2 in Section 5,0 of this EIR). Finally, Policy 1,8 in the Land' Use Element states: Policy 1.8 Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as well as a community college, major college or university. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies within the qeneral Plan. Because the proposed project is consistent with the City of Temecula qeneral Plan L~nd Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements, it is assumed to be consistent With the AQMP and the development's assumptions are included in the modeling for the AQMP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures will reduce emissions to less than significant levels for all pollutants except NOx: Pre-grading AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for a final location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site. . Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices, AQ-3, The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards appropriate for medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of California regulations. AQ-4. The applicant/permittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to prevent dust and erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be installed at the applicant/permittee's expense. e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-26 e e . Air Quality AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the applicant/permittee shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth- moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably possible. AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works Director reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the project construction. AQ-7. The applicant/permittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the following examples listed below: . Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site inactive for over four days. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion. Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon. Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour. Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary coverings. Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. . . . . . . . The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. Compliance with The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be subject to periodic site monitoring by the City Grading and Construction AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel. CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-27 Air Quality AQ-1 o. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. e AQ-11. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. AQ-12. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or construction. AQ-13. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. e AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the project to the maximum extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROli) emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coatings. The following websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content coatings: b!!J2JL http://www.aamd.gov /prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant AI M.pdf http://wwvv.delta-institute.org/publications/paints.pdf AQ-15. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. Operations AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to promote alternative transportation. e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-28 e e e Air Quality level of Impact after Mitigation As discussed above, the proposed Temecula Hospital project will result in significant air quality impacts during the project's construction and operational phases. During the construction phase, compliance with existing SCAQMD regulations will reduce ROli emissions from the application of architectural coatings to levels below the SCAQMD daily construction emission thresholds. Therefore, with mitigation, ROli emissions will be less than significant. However, NO, emissions from construction vehicle exhaust will continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold and result in a significant, unavoidable short-term air quality impact. Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation, estimated emissions of CO and ROli will exceed the operational phase thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Even with measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Long-term air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-29 Air Quality This page is left blank intentionally. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL 4-30 CITY OF TEMECULA e e e e e e 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality This section examines whether development of the T emecula Regional Hospital will contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Water supply is addressed in this section of the EIR in compliance with California Water Code Section 10912 (a)(2) because the proposed project is greater than 500,000 square feet. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the proposed project will result in a less than significant impact with regard to water quality standards, depleting groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge; substantially altering the existing drainage pattern in the area resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, or increase the amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off-site; and exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding or inundation. Environmental Setting Storm Water Drainage The existing storm water drainage system in the City of T emecula, including the project site is governed by the Riverside County Flood Control District, Zone 7.' Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one- third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. The western watershed drains toward the northeast corner of the adjacent property and into an earthen drainage channel that conveys water along the northerly property line of the church development to the west of the site. This runoff will eventually flow to a storm water system that crosses Highway 79 South at Jedediah Smith Road. The eastern watershed drains into an earthen flood control channel that parallels the eastern site boundary and crosses Highway 79 South approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. This channel is open and contains dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows and cottonwoods. Storm water from this channel is conveyed across Highway 79 South to an enclosed storm water system that drains to the Temecula Creek Channel located approximately 1,500 feet to the south of the property.' 1 Riverside County Flood Control District. "About the District." http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverslde.ca.us/districtsite/. Date Accessed: August 9, 2005. 2 Hunter Associates, ltd. (A TRC Company). Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center. November 2004. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-31 Hydrology and Water Quality Water Quality e The project site lies within the San Diego Basin, known as Region 9 of the State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Basin consists of 11 major drainage basins which encompass most of San Diego County, parts of southwestern Riverside County, and portions of southwestern Orange County. These basins are under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Temecula is located within the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit: a rectangular area of about 750 square miles encompassing portions of Camp Pendleton, as well as the civilian population centers of Murrieta, Temecula, and portions of Fallbrook in San Diego County. The RWQCB adopted a new Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit on July 14, 2004 (Order No. R9-2004-001) for the Santa Margarita River Watershed permittees in Riverside County. The Santa Margarita River permittees consist of the City of Temecula, City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.' The MS4 permit requires the City of Temecula to designate temporary and permanent pollution prevention, source-control. and treatment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) on all new developments. All new development projects such as the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will be subject to the Water Quality Management Plan requirements. Water Quality Management Plan requirements consist of structural source control and treatment control BMPs to be maintained by facility owners for as long as the facilities are in operation. The Water Quality Management Plan requires the designation of responsible parties (i.e. property owners, developers, and business operators) for installing and implementing the required BMPs, as well as establishing a funding source for the maintenance of all structural BMPs. e California Water Code Sections 10910-10915 Sections 10910-10915 of the California Water Code identify consultation, noticing, and water supply assessment and provision requirements for proposed projects meeting specific criteria identified in Sections 10910 and 10913 of the Code. The City must consult with local and regional water agencies to assess whether the water demand associated with the project is included in an agency's most recent Urban Water Management Plan, and whether existing supplies can meet the project's demand for water. Based on the entire record, the City will determine within an EIR whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. 3 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). hUD:IIwv\''W .swrcb.ca.gov Irwacb9 loro2rams/basinolan.html. 1994. 4 City of Temecula, Public Works Department. NPDES information. htto:llw\\'W.citvoftemecula.org/citvhall/oub works/landDev/nodes.htm Date accessed: August 10, 2005. e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-32 e e e Hydrology and Water Quality Thresholds Used to Determine level of Impact Impacts of the proposed project to hydrology and water quality will be significant and adverse if it will: . Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff . Otherwise substantially degrade water quality Environmental Impact Storm Water Drainage and Water Quality To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development projects within the City of T emecula are reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control District prior to approval by the City of T emecula. New development projects are required to provide on-site drainage and to pay area drainage fees per acre of development. Drainage fee revenues are used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain system.' State of California Water Resources Control Board requires all development projects to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to mitigate water quality impacts during storm events that occur during construction. Through the MS4 Permit, Temecula is required to ensure that these projects comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In addition, all commercial development proposals where the land area represented by the proposed map or permit is 100,000 square feet or more must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan, outlining how the project will minimize water quality impacts during project operation.' Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and water quality. California Water Code Sections 10910-10915 In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are required to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development project will be permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Compliance with existing regulations will minimize the potential for impact. Water Code section 10910 applies to the project because the proposed hospital and medical office building complex meets the criteria established in California Water Code section 10912 (a)(l) in square feet and potential employment. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) owns, operates, and maintains the public water system within which the proposed project will be located. RCWD will be the water purveyor to the 5 Riverside County Flood Control District. "Area Drainage Fees." hun:! /www.f1oodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/Downloads/ Area DrainJ 2:e Plain Summarv.odf. 6 Riverside County Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program. Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Santa Ana River Region and Santa Margarita Region. September 17, 2004. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-33 Hydrology and Water Quality project. RCWD has prepared a water supply assessment for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix G to this EIR. Findings and conclusions of the water supply assessment are summarized in the following paragraphs. e Rancho California Water District Urban Water Management Plan The development area of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital was identified in RCWD's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, RCWD's 1997 Water Facilities Master Plan, and RCWD's recently adopted 2005 Master Plan Update. The 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan shows an estimated demand of 129,545 acre-feet per year for 2025. The projected water demand for the Temecula Regional Hospital is approximately 42 acre-feet per year. This projection includes an allowance of 28 acre-feet for the hospital. 12 acre-feet for the medical office buildings, 1.2 acre-feet for the fitness center, and 0.8 acre-feet for the proposed cancer center'. This demand has been anticipated and included in the adopted Urban Water Management Plan and Water Facilities Master Plan for RCWD. According to RCWD's Water Facilities Master Plan and 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, RCWD has an existing and planned combined well, imported, and recycled water production capacity of approximately 150,000 acre-feet. The ultimate annual water demand of the RCWD is estimated to b.e 129,545 acre-feet, while the existing demand for 2004 was approximately 85,000 acre-feet. Based on the projected water demands for the T emecula Regional Hospital and future demands projected for the project service area, this project demand is less than the Water Facilities Master Plan projected demands based on land use for the project location. The Master Plan projected demands for the project site are based on use of the site as 30 acres of Business Park/Industrial (1500 gallons per day) and 6 acres of Estate Residential (0.75 acre-feet per acre), resulting in a total of 55 acre-feet for the project area. Therefore, the 42 acre-feet demand estimated for the project has been provided for and can be met with existing supply capacities. e To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the Rancho California Water District intends to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the following alternatives: 1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned RCWD-owned wells. 2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake. 3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed to be available. 4. Conservation measures. Due to RCWD's access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability to supply customers. Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD 7 HKS Inc.jCCRD Partners - Project Architects and Engineers. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-34 e e e Hydrology and Water Quality has the ability to meet demands by augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or critically dry, years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists to support the Temecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water Code section 10910. Impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measures No impact will result; therefore, no mitigation is required. level of Impact after Mitigation Hydrology and water quality impacts will be less than significant. CITY OF TEMECULA Et'NIRONMENTAlIMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-35 Hydrology and Waler Quality This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-36 e e e e e e 4.4 Land Use and Planning This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project site. As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A to this EIR), the proposed project will not result in physical division of an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. To address habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site, a comprehensive biological resource survey and focused surveys for the Burrowing Owl were conducted, pursuant to the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) guidelines. The surveys concluded that no protected species or habitats and no Burrowing Owls occur on the project site (see Appendix E of this EIR). Thus, habitat conservation planning issues are not addressed in this EIR. Environmental Setting Three principal land use planning and regulatory documents govern the use of land in the City of Temecula: the Temecula General Plan (primarily the Land Use, Growth Management/Public Facilities, and Community Design Elements), the City's Development Code (Title 17, Zoning of the Municipal Code), and the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As noted in the introductory statement above, investigations have been performed pursuant to the MSHCP and have concluded that MSHCP policies do not apply due to the absence of biological resources on the site. Thus, this discussion focuses on the General Plan and zoning regulations. Temecula General Plan Land Use Element: The General Plan Land Use Element contains citywide policies for growth and development, as well as specific policies relevant to target areas of the community. The citywide Land Use Element goals and policies most relevant to the project site are as follows: Goal 1 A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses. Policy 1.1 Review all proposed development plans for consistency with community goals, policies and implementation programs of this General Plan, and consider potential impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure. Policy 1.8 Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as well as a community college, major college or university. Goal 3 A City of diversified development character, where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-37 Land Use and Planning Policy 3.1 GoalS Policy S.l Policy S.2 Provide physical and visual buffer areas to create a transition between rural residential and agricultural areas and commercial, industrial and other higher density residential development. e A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential neighborhoods. Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions. Require parcels developed for commercial or industrial uses to incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. The General Plan Land Use Policy Map designates the site as Professional Office. Also, a specific plan overlay, Z2, applies to the site which limits building heights to 2 stories. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element: Goal 2 Policy 2.2 Policy 2.5 Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance quality of life for Temecula residents. Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occurs in such a way that new development is adequately supported as it develops. e Encourage new development that helps create and maintain a balance between jobs and housing opportunities. Temecula Development Code The Temecula Development Code (Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning) establishes zoning districts and regulations applicable to properties in the City and based upon General Plan land use policy. The Development Code includes zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, environmental review procedures, and the sign code. Per State law, Development Code regulations and maps must be consistent with the land uses, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan. The project site currently has two zoning designations. The three lots that abut De Portola Road are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay-8 (pDO-8). The balance of the site is zoned Professional Office (PO). Surrounding land Uses Under the Professional Office (PO) District medical office buildings are permitted uses and hospitals are conditionally permitted uses. The maximum height allowed in the PO District is 75 feet and the maximum lot coverage is 50 percent, with a 25 percent minimum required landscaped open space. e CITY Of TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL 4-38 e e e Land Use and Planning Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the east. Threshold Used to Determine level of Impact The potential impacts of the proposed project related to land use are considered significant and adverse if the project will conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Environmental Impact Temecula General Plan and Development Code Consistency The proposed project is not consistent with the existing General Plan designation, as buildings taller than two stories are proposed. Project applications include a General Plan Amendment to remove the Z2 Overlay and thus allow for greater building height, a change to the Official Zoning Map from PDO-8 and PO to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDG-9), and a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the hospital. The PDG-9 zone would allow development of the site pursuant to the precise plan described in Development Plan application, as ultimately approved by the City Council. The proposed project will change the use on the project site from vacant land to a regional hospital, medical office buildings, a cancer center, a fitness rehabilitation center, a helipad, and related parking. General Plan Policies Land Use Element: The Professional Office General Plan land use designation will continue to apply to the project site. The uses proposed are all permitted within this designation. Thus, no conflict with underlying General Plan land use policy will apply. The project will implement General Plan land use Policy 1.8, which supports development of a hospital. Pursuant to Policies 3.1 and 5.2, the development will be buffered from lower intensity uses to the north with parking lots and landscaped areas. The residential uses to the north will be buffered from the main hospital structures by approximately 210 feet of open space including a horse trail and jogging path located immediately north of the proposed fitness center, as well as 350 feet of open parking area. Additionally, approximately 228 feet of landscaped area is provided immediately south of the proposed jogging path, and west of the parking lots north of the hospital. The project is consistent with overall land use intent for the project site. Impact is less than significant. Elimination of the Z2 overlay would eliminate building height restrictions. As a default, the standards of the applicable zone would apply. The PO zoning district has a building height limit of 75 feet. However, the applicant has submitted a PDO application with the zone change application to allow a maximum height of 115 feet for the tower structures. If approved by the City Council. no conflict between General Plan policy and zoning regulations would result and impact would be less than significant. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-39 Land Use and Planning Growth Management/Public Facilities Element .The proposed project will be a phased development that will allow for efficient implementation of public facilities and services within the project area. Pursuant to Policy 2.2, public facilities and services required to serve the project will be phased to correspond to the project's phasing. Pursuant to Policy 2.5, potential jobs will be created through the development and programming of this regional hospital and the housing for the hospital workers will be accommodated through new housing developments anticipated in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will be consistent with goals and polices of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element listed above. Impact is less than significant. Development Code All uses currently permitted in the existing PO zoning district will still be permitted in proposed PDO-9 zone. Thus, no conflict or impact would result. The primary changes that would occur as a result of the new proposed PDO and the Development Plan would be a change to the building height limit (to allow up to 115 feet) and the establishment of development standards applicable strictly to this site. The PDO document submitted with the application indicates an allowable maximum building height limit of 115 feet. The PDO text clarifies the allowances for increased building height as follows: "The development standards set forth in Section 17.08 for the Professional Office Zone shall apply to this POO with the exception of the following. No more than 30% of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot maximum building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this Section, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines the roof area" The City has stated that a key project objective is to facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City. Further, City objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions (see page 3-3 of this EIR). If approved by the City Council, the proposed General Plan Amendment and PDO-9 zone applicable to the site - and the development resulting from these changes to land use regulations - will be considered appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. If the City Council elects to otherwise limit building height and/or establish additional development conditions, the Council's action indicates its determination that such regulations are appropriate for the site, considering its surroundings in light of the stated project objectives. Therefore, with either action, impact will be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-40 e e e e e e Land Use and Planning Compatibility with Surrounding Uses Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site. The Professional Office designation includes primarily single or multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Office developments are intended to include low-rise offices situated in a landscaped garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at appropriate locations. Typical uses include legal, design, engineering, or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial uses may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Surrounding uses include commercial and professional office development to the east and west (some currently under construction), and residential development across De Portola Road and Highway 79 South. The proposed hospital, medical office, and related uses are consistent with established and planned development uses and patterns along Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road. With regard to the residential uses, the site is separated from these uses by, respectively, a 6-lane roadway to the south and an approximate 88-foot road right-of-way to the north. Also, the site plan builds in buffers in the form of parking lots and landscaping to ensure compatibility between the uses on the site and residential uses. The proposed project will result in beneficial impacts to surrounding uses. The proposed project includes the development of a public horse trail will follow the border of proposed project from he northeast corner at De Portola Road leading toward the western edge of the property. Most of the horse trail will be buffered from the proposed project by improvements such as landscaped areas and a split rail fence. The horse crossing issue at De Portola Road to the proposed project parcels was discussed at previous public hearings for the proposed project. This issue is currently a problem and will continue to be a problem with or without the proposed project. The uses proposed are considered consistent and compatible with surrounding uses; impact will be less than significant. With regard to intensity of use, the project will result in a more intense use of the site than is currently allowed under land use regulations due to the proposed increased height standard. The project will require approval of a planned development permit to provide for the development of the site with the uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components of the proposed development, and to provide development standards for the project. The hospital bed towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site. The nearest tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and approximately 630 feet from De Portola Road. Extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided. These project features will minimize perceived visual effects and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Therefore, land use compatibility impacts with regard to development standards are not considered significant. Refer to Section 4. 1 (Aesthetics) of this EIR for a discussion of potential aesthetic impacts associated with the hospital bed towers and overall site development. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-41 Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures No impact will result; therefore, no mitigation is required. level of Impact after Mitigation Land use and planning impacts will be less than significant. ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-42 CITY OF TEMECULA e e e e e e 4.5 Noise This section examines whether development of the T emecula Regional Hospital will generate or expose persons to short-term or operational noise levels in excess of City standards, or create a substantial permanent or periodic increase in ambient noise within the project area. Appendix C includes the noise study and detailed noise measurement worksheets compiled by Wieland Associates that provide the basis for the following analysis. Environmental Setting The noise environment in the project area is characterized by typical urban noises, such as traffic noise, heavy machinery associated with construction activities, and day-to-day outdoor activities. Noise in the community is the cumulative effect of noise from transportation activities and stationary sources. Transportation noise refers to noise from automobile use, trucking, airport operations, and rail operations. Stationary noise refers to noise from sources such as commercial establishments, machinery, air conditioning systems, compressors, and landscape maintenance equipment. Regardless of the type of noise, the noise levels are highest near the source and decrease with distance. How Sound Is Measured The following describes the noise descriptors that will be used throughout this section. Decibels Sound pressures can be measured in units called microPascals (IlPa). However, expressing sound levels in terms of IlPa would be very cumbersome since it would require a wide range of very large numbers. For this reason, sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer resolution, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, 2 cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dB. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-43 Noise A-Weighting e Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. In order to approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments, or weighting network, are frequency dependent. The A-scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. A range of noise levels associated with common in- and outdoor activities is shown in Figure 4-4. The A-weighted sound level of traffic and other long-term noise-producing activities within and around a community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are accomplished by recording values of the A-weighted level during representative periods within a specified portion of the day. e Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) A given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the duration of exposure experienced by an individual. There are numerous measures of noise exposure that consider not only the A-level variation of noise but also the duration of the disturbance. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). This measure weights the average noise levels for the evening hours (7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 4-5 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA e 4-44 e e e Tlm'sholdnfpo.ln T~~lilemilj Primillgplam J,.:kbammn;ol50' l'",wrl~WlImuwerarS' H.:avylru,k III 50' Cnnc":lcmixcraI50' InsidcclITaf4!lmrh V'><-llUmdC31lCraIIW Car,60mph:n Illlf ("~l"'rsal;l'"al 'f'Cccb Lotrgcu.lIl,j;'rtll<.ral50' Urbenres.l""Il<'l: Sll1:11ll<>wnrelidcncc Soft",hi'permfi NUl1h rim "rGr-..llId Can)">r1 Thn.-sb,>!d<,rhearing 12QdlliA) I)",,,,, llOdB1,A) WOdB{A) 9OtlB(A) M1dlhM ; HOdBcbanp;:;eucrally 1",rv..'W'1a, ,,",'IW<lrhnl1as 1''Il,1 70 dfllA) .~~~H~~~.~~~~ 6U dlHA} .,.~~u~~."~'.15 dB ,"flange l,'I':l'k.'Tall>' _~~~u~."~..j"'l"O;'i"," a~G\Ill<.' n<JIio::cablc 50 "H(A} .~~~u~~."-13 dB ch""gc is t-"lI,.'f31h: han:ly .~~~n~..~~~", fX'r<xpl,hle . 40tlSi,A) ."_~"._"_~~_ ~~a':l,'I': i. J:l:'lIcr..lll)' ''''I 311d8(A) ~UdB1Al IHdfltM Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2005. OdB(AJ Figure 4-4 Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise levels ClTYOFTEMECULA 4-45 Nc..\I10 fn...,way U~ AllJ!'.'b, ~/4 mi. from LAX D"WIIl<.>IHI!>>' All~lcs lI"usill!!,ononaJorstll;'\'1 Lo~ Augdc:<. g 01;. fmm lAX Old 'IlIhum.~1I n:si,knlial area Smalll,,"'ncul..re.-"l~ YO<1H "'ill) 70,1B .... Comn"," ,rolll,l_d fur l"II"SC c:\posllre Ic~e1 .,.. IIIC'J..,norr",,<JcnUalan.as fif),JH ~QillJ ... ('''11m"", ~ta,l<lard Ii.>r ",.isc ".\p<>sur" level .,.. In mreno,. "".lkl1ll;l.) "'''''\ F;l/"m -tlldR Source: lNieland Associates, Inc., 2005. 30,m Figure 4-5 Common CNEl Noise Exposure levels at Various locations ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEM~CUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise Noise Standards California Code of Regulations In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Development adopted noise insulation standards for residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise attributable to outside noise sources. Title 24 also specifies that acoustical studies be prepared whenever a residential building or structure is proposed to be located within exterior CNEL or Ld" contours of 60 dB or greater attributable to an existing or adopted freeway, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit line, or industrial noise source. The acoustical analysis must show that the building has been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL or Ld" of 45 dB. Table 4-7 outlines the interior and exterior noise standards set forth by Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations. Table 4-7 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Noise Standards' Interior' Exterior land Use Residential - Single-family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home Residential - Transient lodging, hotels, motels, nursing homes, hospitals Private offices, church sanctuaries, libraries, board rooms, conference rooms, theaters, auditoriums, concert halls, meeting halls, etc. Schools General offices, reception, clerical, etc. Bank, lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. Manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, ete. Parks, playgrounds Gold courses, outdoor spectator sports, amusement oarks Source: Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations. Notes: 1. CNEl: Community Noise Equivalent level. leq(12): The A-weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a 12-hour period (usually the hours of operations). 2. Indoor standard with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation would be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment. Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors. Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes, multi-family patios and balconies (with a depth of 6 feet or more) and common recreation areas. s. Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic area, and other areas of frequent human use. CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dB' CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dB' Leq(12) 45 dB(A) Leq(12) 45 dB(A) Leq(12) 50 dB(A) Leq(12) 55 dB(A) Leq(12) 65 dB(A) Leq(12) 67 dB (A)' CNEL 65 dB' CNEL 70 dB' 3. 4. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-46 e e e e e e Noise Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Under FHWA regulations (23 CFR 772), noise abatement must be considered for new highway construction and highway reconstruction projects when the noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria. For hospital sites, these criteria indicate that the Leq during the noisiest one-hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dB(A) at exterior areas or 52 dB(A) within the interior of a hospital or medical building. City of Temecula General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan provides noise guidelines for various land uses. The following is a summary of the guidelines that apply to the land uses in the project vicinity. Table 4-8 presents the City's adopted guidelines for all land use types. These guidelines are to be used in determining land use compatibility in development decisions. Residential - For all high-density residential land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. For all other residential uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Schools - For all schools, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Public/Institutional (including hospitals) - For all public/institutional land uses (except schools, which are addressed above), a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB and a maximum interior CNEL of up to 50 dB are permitted. Open Space - For open space land uses, including agricultural uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. An exception is for open space land uses where quiet is a basis for the land use, in which case a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Commercial and Office - For all commercial and office land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. For professional offices, there is also a maximum interior noise standard of 50 dB CNEL. In addition, new development projects are required to comply with interior noise standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-47 Noise e Table 4-8 City af Temecula Noise Standards Maximum Noise Level Property Receiving Noise (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Hillside Rural Very Low 45 65 Residential Low Low Medium Medium 45 65 / 70 High 45 70' Neighborhood Community 70 Commercial and Office Highway Tourist Service Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Schools 50 65 e Public/Institutional All others 50 70 Vineyards/ Agricuitu re 70 Open Space Open Space 70 /6S' Source: City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element. I Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEl are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing. 2 Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. City of Temecula Municipal Code The City of Temecula does not have a noise ordinance. However, the City has adopted construction-related noise controls. The City of Temecula Municipal Code (Section 8.32.020) provides restrictions on the times during which construction activity can take place. For construction sites within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, it limits construction to between the hours of 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M.., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal. State, or local entity and emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of Section 8.32.020. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of Section 8.32.020. CITY OF TEMECULA e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-48 e e e Noise Existing Noise Traffic on local streets is the predominant source of noise that currently affects the study area. To document the existing noise environment, measurements were obtained at 3 locations throughout the study area, as shown in Figure 4-6. Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 Figure 4-6 Noise Measurement Locations The locations are identified as follows: #1 - #2 - #3 - In the rear yard of 31775 De Portola Road On the project site, at the offset of the proposed 5-story bed tower In the rear yard of 31602 Calle Los Padres (this location is adjacent to Highway 79 South) CITY OF TEMECULA 4-49 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise At locations #1 and #3, the measurement was obtained over a continuous 24-hour period. A 20- minute measurement was obtained at location #2. The results of the noise measurements, provided in Appendix C, are summarized in Table 4-9. Table 4-9 Summary of Noise Measurements location # location Description Measured Average Noise level dB(A) 44- 55 CNEl dB 57 Measurement Period 24 hours Rear yard of 31775 De Portola Road On project site, at offset of proposed 5-story bed tower Rear yard of 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79 South) . Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 2 20 minutes 56 N/A 52 - 63 65 24 hours 3 These results were used to model existing traffic noise levels adjacent to various street segments in the study area based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the roadway to the noise receptor. The results of modeling for existing traffic noise levels, provided in Appendix C. are summarized in Table 4-10. It should be noted that many of the residences in the study area are buffered from the traffic noise by walls of various heights that reduce the noise levels identified in Table 4-10 by about 5 to 10 dB. Table 4-10 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Unmitigated Distance to CNEL Contour from Near Lane CNEl @ 50' Centerline in feet Arterial/ Reach 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD North of Highway 79 South 68.0 dB 215 90 South of Highway 79 South 67.5 dB 200 83 PfCHANGA PARKWAY South of Highway 79 South 70.5 dB 320 143 56 REDHAWK PARKWAY South of Highway 79 South 69.5 dB 278 120 HIGHWA Y 79 SOUTH West of 1-15 Freeway 73.5 dB 490 235 100 West of Pechanga Parkway 78.0 dB 860 460 215 90 West of Margarita Road 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 West of Butterfield Stage Road 73.5 dB 490 235 100 East of Butterfield StaQe Road 72.0 dB 395 185 75 Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY Of TEMECULA 4-50 e e e e e e Noise Thresholds Used to Determine level of Impact A significant impact will result if implementation of the project will: . Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or Municipal Code, or applicable standards of other agencies. This impact will occur if: (1) the CNEL exceeds 70 dB at the exterior or 50 dB at the interior of the proposed hospital or medical buildings; or (2) the project increases the exterior CNEL above the maximum permitted by the City's General Plan at existing land uses. . Expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. . Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact will occur if the project traffic increases the CNEL at any existing noise-sensitive receptor by an audible amount of 3 dB or more. . Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This condition will occur if construction activities occur outside the hours permitted by the City's Municipal Code. . Expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of activities at an airport. Environmental Impact The proposed project is not located within an airport influence area, and no public or private airport is within 2 miles of the project site. Therefore, no environmental impact associated with airport operations will result. However, the proposed project includes a helipad that would be used for transporting patients to other locations in the event on-site staff cannot address a specific medical need; this impact is discussed below. Site Plan The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 4-7. A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad will also be located on the site near the northeast corner of the hospital. Approaches and takeoffs associated with the helipad will be oriented to the southeast. A truck loading zone and mechanical yard for the hospital will be located on the eastern edge of the hospital. south of the helipad. The loading zone and mechanical yard will provide infrastructure to support the hospital, including a cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4.51 e .. ....., .. ~idences I "'PORTOLA;>;: ~~t.~ ......!;............__. .....__~--'I- !.fi ........""..._..- ------ ,- I:. , I" :) : I. , -i I rt,. I Residences I !Ii , 5!'-, ---, {:I ' 1 ii' ! /1 "" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ---- e =====~!.'!!l!!l!!!_ ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- _______n::::::;"'''''''''''''''''''''~ ,Irr""""-o-n----"""'-"""""'''''''''''------ I Residences m~ I Figure 4-7 Site Plan )o{,,"'''HK~M=hrll.l00I_ $ H H I----f feet o 200 400 E""iromn.."tallmpC>ctRepoort TcmecullJRe'glonalHospital Cilyof Temeculo ~_52 e e e e Noise Construction In compliance with the City's Municipal Code noise requirements (Section 8.32.020), construction activity will occur only between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. No construction activities will be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction noise levels, as perceived at locations near the project site, will fluctuate depending upon the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment, as well as the distance from construction activities. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short term. Short-term impacts vary in duration and are dependent upon the type of construction activity, the associated equipment used for that activity, and the project phasing. Short-term impacts for the proposed project will occur throughout each of the phases of construction and will last from 2 months for site grading to 12 months for building construction. Based on the estimated combined construction noise levels identified in Table 4-11, an analysis was conducted to estimate the noise levels that will be experienced at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. This analysis is summarized in Table 4-12. At times, construction noise may cause annoyance at noise-sensitive locations in the vicinity. Referring to the table, the CNEL due to the construction activities is expected to exceed the 65 dB threshold and increase the ambient noise level by more than 3 dB at the residences to the northwest. At the residences to the south, construction is expected to increase the CNEL above the City's 65 dB threshold. However, the impact of construction noise is considered less than significant because it will occur within the hours permitted by the City's Municipal Code. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-53 Noise Table 4-11 Estimated Combined Noise level During Each Construction Phase e Avg. Equipment Construction Phase & Noise Level @ Load Avg. Equipment CNEL @ Enuioment 50'.1. Facto"" 50' with Load Factor' Phase 1 - Demolition 1 crusher/processor 88 dBA 0.780 82 dBA 2 dozers 88 dBA 0.590 81 dBA l/oader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA 1 tractor/loader/backhoe 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA Combined 86 dBA Phase 2 - 5ite Grading 2 excavators 83 dBA 0.580 76 dBA 1 grader 85 dBA 0.575 78 dBA 2 tractors 83 dBA 0.410 74 dBA 5 trucks 95 dBA 0.490 87 dBA 2 other equipment 83 dBA 0.620 76 dBA 1 loader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA 2 scrapers 92 dBA 0.660 85 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA 2 trenchers 83 dBA 0.695 76 dBA Combined 91 dBA Phase 3a - Building Construction e 1 concrete saw 90 dBA 0.730 84 dBA 2 cranes 91 dBA 0.430 82 dBA 2 other equipment 83 dBA 0.620 76 dBA 1 forklift 76 dBA 0.475 68 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA Combined 87 dBA Phase 3b - Paving 1 truck 88 dBA 0.490 80 dBA 3 pavers 94 dBA 0.590 87 dBA 5 paving equipment 92 dBA 0.530 84 dBA 2 rollers 77 dBA 0.430 68 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA 1 surfacing equipment 80 dBA 0.490 72 dBA Combined 90 dBA Notes: a. Obtained or estimated from: Noise (rom Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. U.s. Environmental Protection Agency. December 31,1971. and Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. April 1995. b. Percentage of time equipment is operating at noisiest mode in most used phase on site. c. CNEL assumes all equipment operates simultaneously during an B-hour workday. Source: Wieland Associates, September 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4.54 CITY OF TEMECULA e e e e Noise Table 4-12 Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels Estimated Estimated Attenuation CNEL @ Estimated Increase due Estimated Due to Sensitive Construction to Noise-Sensitive Construction CNEL @ Distance, Location, Noise + Construction, Location Phase 50' dB dB' dB" Ambient. dB dB Nearest Demolition 86 70 70 13 residences to the Grading 91 -16 (305') 75 75 18 northwest Construction 87 71 71 14 Paving 90 74 74 17 Nearest Demolition 86 57 66 1 residences to the Grading 91 -24 (760') 62 67 2 Construction 87 58 66 1 south Paving 90 61 66 1 Demolition 86 61 71 1 Nearest offices to Grading 91 -25 (880') 66 71 1 the east Construction 87 62 71 1 Paving 90 65 71 1 Demolition 86 63 71 1 Nearest offices to Grading 91 -23 (745') 68 72 2 the west Construction 87 64 71 1 Pavinl! 90 67 72 2 Notes: a. Attenuation is based on a reduction of 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source. Distance is calculated from the center of the project site. b. At nearest residences to the south, 5 dB of attenuation is assumed for the wall adjacent to SR-79. At office properties to the east and west, an existing CNEL of 70 dB is assumed based on Table 4-10. Source: Wieland Associates, Septemher 2005. Ground-borne Vibration or Noise Ground-borne vibration is measured in terms of the velocity of the vibration oscillations. As with noise, a logarithmic decibel scale (VdB) is used to quantify vibration intensity. When ground-borne vibration exceeds 75 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to building occupants. The degree of annoyance is dependent upon type of land use, individual sensitivity to vibration, and the frequency of the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 100 VdB before building damage occurs. The primary vibratory source during the construction of the project will be large bulldozers. Based on published data'. typical bulldozer activities generate an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB at a distance of 25 feet. At the distance of the nearest residences to the project site (about 305 feet) the estimated vibration level will be 65 VdB. This is below the threshold at which building damage occurs and below the impact criteria of 75 VdB for residential properties. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. However, if a bulldozer moves within about 100 feet of an existing residence, 1 Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment April 1995. CITY OF TEMECUIA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-55 Noise it is possible that vibration will be perceived by residents, if the home is occupied. The impact will not be significant, however, because the vibration will not be sufficient to cause building damage. Ambient Noise levels Operational Noise The proposed project will introduce a number of new noise sources into the study area, including increased traffic (including emergency vehicles), occasional helicopter flights, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, parking lot activities, trash pickups, and landscaping and maintenance activities. Each of these sources is discussed in greater detail below. The traffic analysis assesses the impacts of both Phase I traffic and cumulative traffic for Phases I through V. The worst-case future operational noise levels will occur when the entire project is operational (i.e., Phases I through V are complete); therefore, the remaining analyses assume the entire project is complete and operational. Traffic An estimate of traffic noise levels associated with various street segments in the study area was based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the roadway to the noise receptor. The results of the analyses are provided in Table 4-13 for the Opening Year Without Project scenario, in Table 4-14 for the With Project Phase I scenario, and in Table 4-15for the With Project Phases I through V scenario. Each table identifies the estimated CNEL generated by traffic. Many of the residences in the study area are buffered from traffic noise by walls of various heights that are estimated to provide between 5 dB and 10 dB of noise reduction. The data in the noise-level projection tables indicate that: . The proposed project will increase the traffic-generated CNEL by at most 0.5 dB. This is less than the 3 dB threshold of significance. Therefore, impact is less than significant. . Project traffic will not increase the CNEL from below the threshold of significance to above the threshold of significance at any existing medical, residential, school, agricultural, or commercial/office land use in the study area. Therefore, impact is less significant. ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 4-56 e e e Noise e Table 4-13 Traffic Noise Exposure levels, Opening Year without Project Arterial/Reach Unmitigated Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. CNEL @ 50' 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 - - South of SR-79 70.S dB 320 143 56 - - PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 72.S dB 428 200 83 - - RfDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 - - SR-79 West of 1-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 - West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala 80.0 dB 1,050 600 300 130 50 West of Margarita Rd. 78.5 dB 905 490 235 100 - West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 - East of Butterfield Stape Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 Table 4-14 Traffic Noise Exposure levels with Project Phase I Arterial/Reach Unmitigated Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. CNEL @ 50' 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 BOdB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. e North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 - - South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 - - PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 - - REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 - - SR-79 West of 1-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 - West of Pechanga Pkwy. (pala 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56 West of Margarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 - West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 - East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 - - Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 e CITY OF TEMECULA ENYIRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT 4-57 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise Table 4-15 e Traffic Noise Exposure levels with Project Phases I through V Unmitigated Distance to CNEL Contour, it. Arterial/Reach CNEL @ 50' 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB BUTTERfiELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 no dB 395 185 75 5R-79 West of 1-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56 West of Margarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 East of Butterfield StaQe Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 Sirens Another potential noise source related to hospital traffic is emergency vehicles and their sirens. Based on previously conducted measurements of ambulance sirens, maximum noise levels are estimated to be as high as 105 dB(A) at 25 feet. Although these levels may cause some annoyance at nearby noise-sensitive receptors, noise from emergency vehicles is considered to have a less than A significant impact because it will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and because ,., sirens are necessary for safety during an emergency. Helicopter Flights The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to 6 landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even jf that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.' Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading (i.e., back the same way it came). In order to analyze the potential noise impacts of helicopter flights, the Helicopter Noise Model version 2.2, developed by the Federal Aviation Administration, was utilized. The exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been confirmed, but the Bell 222 has been identified as 2 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. CITY OF TEMECULA e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-58 e e e Noise a model that could potentially be used. Specific information regarding the flight profile was unavailable. Therefore, the following assumptions were made in order to conduct the analysis: . The helicopter was assumed to be a Bell 222. . The helicopter takeoff and approach profiles were assumed to be the default profiles provided by Helicopter Noise Model version 2.2 for a Bell 222 helicopter. . The helicopter heading for both takeoff and approach was assumed to be exactly southeast on a heading of 1350 for at least several thousand feet from the helipad. . To identify the worst-case noise levels, the analysis assumed that typically, an entire flight would occur during the nighttime hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. Figure 4-8 shows the results of the analysis and identifies the 60, 65 and 70 dB CNEL contours. As shown, the 65 dB CNEL contour is located entirely within the project site and neighboring flood control channel, and does not extend to any of the neighboring noise-sensitive receivers. The ambient noise level at existing occupied homes in the vicinity of the proposed heliport is approximately 57 dB CNEL. The 60 dB contour does not extend as far as these homes, so helicopter flights are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels by 3 dB or more. Based on the assumptions stated above, the analysis indicates that impacts associated with any single helicopter flight using the flight path stated will not be significant. As stated above, the helipad permit to be obtained will permit up to 6 flights per month. In a worst- case condition, this level of activity could occur. Also, the preferred flight path might change for any given flight depending upon weather conditions and wind speed/direction. The key concern associated with this scenario would be the maximum noise level. The noise level generated by a helicopter depends on a number of factors, including the activity (e.g., hovering, climbing, approaching, etc.), airspeed, power setting, altitude, and ground conditions. Based on published data, the highest average noise levels that will occur during a hover at the helipad range from 76 to 82 dB(A) at a distance of 500 feet, depending on the orientation of the helicopter relative to the receptor. At the distance of the homes nearest the helipad (about 610 feet), the average noise level will be about 74 to 80 dB(A)-' Assuming that standard building construction provides 20 dB of noise reduction with windows closed, the interior noise level is expected to be about 54 to 60 dB (A). Thus, in the worst-case scenario of 6 landings per month, nearby residents could experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that could be considered annoying. (The City does not have any regulations applicable to point-source noise events.) 3 Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin jet Helicopter. February 1984. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-59 Noise Source: Wieland Associates, Inc. September 2005. Figure 4-8 Helicopter Flight Noise Contours = Heliport , lllOvd e e e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-60 CITY OF TEMECULA e e e Noise A study was conducted to gauge community reactions to helicopter noise based not only on the level of noise but on the number of helicopter events per day' This study identifies the following formula for predicting the annoyance of helicopter noise: A = Bo +BL *L +BN *log(N) where, A ~ annoyance (rated on a scale from 0 = "not at all annoyed" to 10 = "extremely annoyed"), BO = -16.5, BL = 0.20, L = sound exposure level (SEL), BN = 1.64, and N = number of events. Assuming one flight on a "worst-case" day, and that the flight hovers for one minute prior to landing or climbing, the sound exposure level (SEL) for this activity would be 94 to 100 dB (A). Using this formula, the estimated annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4 (on a scale from 0 to 10). If this condition occurred up to 6 times per month, the level of short-term, periodic impact could be considered significant by those persons living closest to the hospital. Loading Dock Activities The proposed hospital will have 3 loading docks for truck deliveries. These docks are proposed to be located on the east side of the project site, south of the helipad. Once operational, the hospital will receive approximately 3 to 4 truck deliveries per day during the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. No nighttime deliveries will occur. In order to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with the loading docks, data obtained as part of a previous study' for a food processing and storage facility was utilized. The previous study reported that the highest noise levels measured at the loading docks were associated with large refrigerated trucks idling as they were unloaded; the measurements indicated a noise level of approximately 75 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming the worst-case 10-minute average noise level at the proposed loading docks will be the same, and allowing for the noise reduction provided by the distance from the loading docks to the nearest occupied home (approximately 845 feet). the estimated 1 O-minute average noise level at the home due to loading dock activities is approximately 50 dB (A). With 4 deliveries over a 24-hour period, this equates to a CNEL of 42 dB. This level is below the daytime stationary noise source standards of 65 dB. Measurements indicate that the existing CNEL at the home is about 57 dB, so loading dock activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 4 Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. 5 Noise Measurements of Existing Truck Facility and Assessment of Noise Impacts for Proposed New Facility in the City of Vernon. Wieland Associates, Inc. October 15, 2003. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-6\ Noise At the office property to the east (a distance of about 285 feet), the CNEL is expected to be about 51 dB. This is below the City's standard of 70 dB, and will not increase the existing CNEL by 3 dB or more; therefore, the impact is less than significant. The residential parcel is designated for Professional Office (PO) use within the General Plan. This land use designation and the underlying PO and PDO-8 zones are intended primarily for single- tenant and multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Typical permitted uses include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Limited supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Residential uses within the PO zone are allowed only by conditional use permit, and are limited to either one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business or for a senior or affordable housing project. Future development and use of these parcels are anticipated to be as professional office uses. Furthermore, because there will only be 3 to 4 delivery trucks per day, because the duration of the deliveries will be short, impact is less than significant. Mechanical Equipment Four primary sources of mechanical equipment noise are associated with the hospital: (1) the duty equipment located in the mechanical yard, (2) the emergency generators located in the mechanical yard, (3) the mechanical equipment room, and (4) rooftop mechanical equipment. Each of these noise sources is addressed below. Mechanical Yard Duty Equipment - The mechanical yard is to be located on the east side of the project site, between the helipad to the north and the loading docks to the south. The duty equipment consists of 3 cooling towers and 2 transformers. Based on noise data for the cooling towers provided by the manufacturer, and on prediction algorithms for transformer noise (the transformers are assumed to be 1,000 kV A each based on discussions with the project's consulting engineers), it is estimated that the combined noise level for all the equipment is 74 dB(A) at 50 feet. The worst-case noise-sensitive location is the residential property approximately 710 feet to the north. At this distance the estimated noise level is 51 dB(A). Over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be about 58 dB. This level complies with the City's standard of 65 dB. However, the equipment will increase the existing CNEL at the residence by 4 dB. Therefore, the impact is significant, and mitigation is required. At the nearest office property to the east (a distance of about 160 feet), the CNEL generated by the duty equipment is estimated to be 71 dB. This exceeds the City's standard of 70 dB; therefore, the impact is significant, and mitigation is required. Mechanical Yard Emergency Generators - Also proposed within the mechanical yard are 2 emergency generators. Each of these generators will be tested for approximately 5 minutes each month but may run for an indefinite period in the event of an emergency. Based on noise data provided by the generator manufacturer it is estimated that the noise level for each generator is 86 dB(A) at 52 feet. This level does not include the contribution from the engine exhaust stack, which may increase the noise level by several decibels depending on the quality of the muffler. The worst- case noise-sensitive location is an existing home approximately 750 feet to the north. At this distance, the estimated noise level is 63 dB (A), without the contribution of the engine exhaust. On a maintenance test day, this equates to a CNEL of at least 41 dB, which complies with the City's standard. However, if the generators run continuously over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be at ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 4-62 e e e e e e Noise least 70 dB. This exceeds the City's 65 dB standard. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant (depending on how long the generators run during a 24-hour period, and during which hours of the day they run). At the distance of the nearest office property to the east (about 185 feet), the CNEL will be about 53 dB on a maintenance test day, which complies with the City's standard of 70 dB. However, if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB, which exceeds the City's standard. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant at this location as well. The Mechanical Equipment Room - The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the Phase IB hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard. An analysis of the central plant room noise levels is not currently possible, as the construction of the room/building is not known and the details for all the equipment are not available. However, based on the fact that the central plant will contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers, and boilers it is anticipated that it could produce significant impacts at nearby noise-sensitive receivers unless mitigation is incorporated into the design. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is required. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment - Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are potential noise sources. However, structural designs are easily implemented in new construction, and it is anticipated that such measures will be included during the final design of the project to minimize rooftop mechanical equipment noise. Parking Lot Activities The predominant noise sources associated with parking lot activities include car doors slamming, cars starting, cars accelerating away from the parking stalls, and people talking, shouting and laughing. The estimated noise generated by people talking at a normal conversational level was too low to be measured over the existing ambient. Parking lot activities at the proposed hospital will vary, generally occurring throughout the day as patients and visitors arrive and leave, with potential peaks in activity when staff arrive and depart at the beginning and end of their shifts. To estimate the 10-minute average noise level that will be generated by these activities, an analysis was conducted using traffic data contained in the project traffic study. The traffic data indicates that the busiest hour will be in the afternoon, when 334 vehicles arrive and 595 vehicles leave the hospital site. The results of the analysis indicate that the unmitigated 10-minute average noise level (Leq) generated by parking lot activities will be about 44.5 dB(A) at the nearest neighboring properties. This level is below both the daytime and nighttime stationary noise source standards. Existing daytime ambient noise levels range from 49 to 55 dB(A). so parking lot activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. In addition, this type of noise would be expected from any development occurring on this site. Therefore, impact is less than significant. Trash Pickup Trash pickup is frequently a cause of complaints from residents living adjacent to commercial uses. Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source during raising, lowering, and compacting operations. However, this noise is temporary and will not occur on a constant basis. A typical trash pickup lasts only 3 minutes on average and is a common noise source that exists throughout the community. Therefore, this project impact will be less than significant. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-63 Noise e Landscaping and Maintenance Landscaping and maintenance activities will utilize noise-producing equipment such as lawnmowers, lawn edgers, leaf blowers, and sweepers. However, these types of equipment are only used occasionally, and for limited time periods. Such activities will typically be shielded from some of the noise-sensitive receivers by the hospital buildings themselves, further reducing noise levels. Therefore, impact will be less than significant. Future Noise Environment at the Project Site Discussion of future noise impacts at the hospital site has been divided into two sections: exterior and interior noise levels. Exterior Noise Levels: An analysis was conducted to identify the future traffic noise exposures that will occur at the project site. Results of the analysis are provided in Appendix C. and are summarized in previous Table 4-15. The standard of 70 dB CNEL for a hospital site is exceeded at all exterior locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane of Highway 79 South. However, no exterior useable/habitable spaces are located within this envelope. Therefore, impact will be less than significant. Interior Noise Levels: As shown in previous Table 4-15, CNEL is expected to be up to 71 dB at the medical office building closest to Highway 79 South (approximately 225 feet from the center of the nearest lane), and up to 68.5 dB at the hospital bed tower closest to Highway 79 South (approximately 340 feet from the center of the nearest lane). Based on a review of preliminary e fa<;ade construction details for the medical office and hospital buildings, it is estimated that the buildings will provide at least 21 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, the noise levels inside the buildings will comply with the interior CNEL standard of 50 dB. At locations further from the street, the estimated CNEL will be lower than 50 dB. Therefore, impact is less than significant. Summary of Noise Impacts Using the thresholds described above, the following may be concluded regarding the noise impacts of the proposed project: . Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section 8.32.020 of the Municipal Code. . The proposed project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. However, ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the demolition, site clearing and grading phase of the construction when activity occurs very near the property lines. This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the short duration of the activity. . One helicopter flight per month will not create significant noise impacts. However, up to 6 flights per month may be considered by some residents near the hospital to be a significant impact and annoyance. CITY OF TEMECULA e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-64 e e e Noise . Noise associated with the mechanical yard equipment (including the emergency generators) may expose persons to noise levels in excess of the noise/land use compatibility standards established in the City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, impact is potentially significant. . Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures To mitigate the project's significant noise impacts, the following mitigation measures are required relative to the design and operation of the project: N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully operational upon completion of project construction, the applicant/permittee shall conduct continuous, 24- hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that may be in place at the time, the applicant/permittee shall implement measures to achieve the thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such measures may include, but not be limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance. N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for critical patient transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit for an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits. N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of a preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast. N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to four per day, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings on the site to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the General Plan. N-6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and other restrictions set forth in the City of T emecula Municipal Code. N-7 All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to minimize noise. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-65 Noise N-8 During demolition and construction operations, the applicant/permittee shall stage all stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical from surrounding residential properties. level of Impact after Mitigation With implementation of mitigation measures, the impact of noise generated by activities at the hospital facility upon surrounding residential locations - with the exception of helicopter noise - will be less than significant. Even with mitigation measures to reduce helicopter flight noise impacts, these impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance because of the uncertainty of the exact number of flights per month due to the unknown number of emergencies that will occur within any given month. Helicopter flight noise impacts will be significant and unavoidable. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECULA 4-66 e e e e e e 4.6 Transportation This section of the EIR examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in increased vehicle trips to the degree that the level of service standard established by the City of Temecula for designated roads or highways will be exceeded. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the project will not result in increased hazards due to road design features, result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted alternative transportation policies or plans. The information presented in this section is summarized from the Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center (Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004) and the subsequent Temecu/a Medical Center Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum, September 16, 2005, included as Appendix D of this EIR. As described in Section 3, Project Description, construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. All five phases of the proposed project are included in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the EIR. The November 4, 2004 traffic study was supplemented by the Addendum to account for the following change to the project: prohibiting left-turn movements from the site onto De Portola Road (that is, limiting movements at this location to right-turn in and out and left-turn in only). Also, updated traffic counts were obtained at selected locations for focused analysis of the changed conditions, and the background future traffic growth was adjusted to account for cumulative projects and time that had passed since preparation of the November 4, 2004 study. The Addendum also addresses two alternative access scenarios as a Project Alternative; this issue is presented in Section 5, Alternatives to the Project of this EIR. The discussion in this section references Highway 79 South as the roadway fronting the project site. The traffic study uses the term State Route 79, or SR-79. Since completion of the original traffic study in November of 2004, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has transferred ownership of the roadway to the City of Temecula, hence the name change to Highway 79 South. Also, since publication of the original traffic study, Pala Road has been renamed Pechanga Parkway. Methodology Ten intersections and 10 roadway links were analyzed during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours for existing conditions (base conditions in 2004 for the original traffic study and July, 2005 for the Addendum), pre-project conditions, and post-project conditions (future conditions with the project). The following intersections and roadway links were selected because they were considered most likely to be impacted by the project. The intersections and roadway segments indicated in italicized text below were addressed as part of the traffic study Addendum. Signalized Intersections . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps . Highway 79 South/La Paz Street CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-67 Transportation . Highway 79 South/Pala Road . Highway 79 South/ Avenida De Missiones . Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway . Highway 79 South/Butterfield Stage Road . Margarita Road/De Porto/a Road . Dartolo Road/Margarita Road . Highway 79 South/ Margarita Road e Unsignalized Intersections . De Porto/a Road/Project Driveway . Highway 79 South/Country Glen Way Roadway Links . Highway 79 South: West of 1-15 Freeway . Highway 79 South: West of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South: West of Margarita Road . Highway 79 South: West of Butterfield Stage Road . Highway 79 South: East of Butterfield Stage Road . Pechanga Parkway: South of Highway 79 South . Redhawk Parkway: South of Highway 79 South . Butterfield Stage Road: North of Highway 79 South . Butterfield Stage Road: South of Highway 79 South . De Portola Road west of Pio Pico Road . De Porto/a Road east of Pio Pico Road . Margarita Road from De Porto/a Road to Dartolo Road . Margarita Road from Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South e The study area intersections and roadway links were analyzed in the following scenarios to determine the impacts to the road network: . Existing traffic . Background Traffic without Phase I Operations . Background Traffic with Phase I Operations . Background Traffic with Phase I with Improvements . Background Traffic with Total Project Operations . Background Traffic with Total Project with Improvements For the purpose of the original traffic study and to allow for a conservative (worst-case) assessment of traffic impacts, the first project phase was defined as 170 hospital beds and 80,000 square feet of medical office space. The second phase represents the entire project. For the Addendum, the project at build-out was analyzed. Measures of Operations and Effectiveness Utilized The measure of effectiveness for intersection and segment operations is level of service (LOS). In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The LOS analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. e ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA -4-68 e e e Transportation Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, LOS criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 4-16 summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections. Table 4-16 level of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay per Vehicle ISecondsNehicle) 0.0 < 10.0 10.1 to 20.0 21.1 to 35.0 35.1 to 55.0 55.1 to 80.0 > 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Level of Service (LOS) A B C D E F LOS A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e., less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. LOS B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. LOS C describes operations with delay in the range 20.1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with delay in the range 35.1 seconds and 55.0. seconds per vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher volume to capacity (V /e) ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are more frequent. Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections were analyzed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak-hour conditions. Average vehicle delay and LOS was determined based upon the 2000 HCM. Table 4-17 summarizes the delay thresholds for unsignalized intersections. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-69 Transportation e Table 4-17 level of Service Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections Average Control Delay per Vehicle level of Service (SecondslVehicle) (LOS) 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 50.0 E > 50.1 F Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. The City of Temecula has established an intersection capacity performance standard of LOS D for peak-hour intersection operation impacts. Roadway Link Analysis Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the project area are based upon the latest traffic data collected by LLG Engineers at the key intersections and factored up from the peak hour counts using the following formula for each intersection leg: PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) * 12 = ADT e Environmental Setting The project site is located in the City of Temecula on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Existing Street System The following describes the existing street system in the project area. Street classifications, where noted, are based on the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. Figure 4-9 shows existing roadway conditions. Highway 79 South is classified as a 6-lane prime arterial in the project area immediately south of the project site. Curbside parking is generally prohibited along Highway 79 South, and the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph). e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4.70 e ~~r1' ~ T e ~'. e ~ ~ 0# i ;;>'" lOll 11 >- ~>- "..,0 c:o~ ~ o-g "'0 a.c"'O L... .25~"O ~I-'_ G) -0" >.2: "0 .... "0'- c: I: 0..... C'~ cnc.3 O'l ~:J"O W.Q' ~.E E Q) (/) ,,-._~:J >.,G> C o ~(I)6J-oco :t:(Lo"Oa......3:.2- 00 GJ_.r:. L. o L..I-CG>Q0100::J Z I- UlUl~Z1i:I-~ ~ 0 W I-LL 8 I I I I I I I I I ...J @)p*<I!l:~5;;>O ii:j!NV j)~ .p~'1 ~ ..... '- : :Ill'" r.....' r : Ul : m..- : ~ . ~ : lO ..; o g ,- ~ e ~ ! u ~ , 5' " 8 .' ~ ~ ~ 0- III I C -.;t 0 Q) :-E '-"'C ::> C "~ 0 LLU >. o ~ "'C o o ~ Ol C ~ III "X W t- o 0 0-.-: . ~ ~ . _ 0 g r E] - 0 1! .0. < . . ~ E 0 < - o ' " u ";; II ..5 ~ ~ ;:: -.l . " u ~ 0 o '3 Z ~ E ei Transportation La Paz Street is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the project area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, e and curbside parking is generally permitted. La Paz Street is signalized at Highway 79 South. Pechanga Parkway is currently a 4-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is prohibited at the approach to Highway 79 South, but is otherwise permitted. The posted speed limit on Pechanga Parkway is 50 mph. pechanga Parkway is signalized at Highway 79 South. De Portola Road is currently a 2-lane undivided roadway in the project area, providing one lane of travel per direction. The General Plan Circulation Element designates De Portola Road as a Modified Secondary Arterial. This classification consists of a 4-lane undivided roadway with a cross section of 70 feet within 88 feet of right-of-way, which allows for a trail alongside the roadway. Avenida de Missiones is a 4-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Avenida de Missiones is currently unsignalized at its intersection with Highway 79 South. Curbside parking is generally permitted, and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. Avenida de Missiones is proposed to be signalized at Highway 79 South as part of the Rancho Community Church project. Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway is classified as a 4-lane major roadway and is currently built to that configuration in the project area, with curbside parking generally prohibited. Redhawk Parkway is also currently a 4-lane divided roadway with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway is signalized at Highway 79 South. Butterfield Stage Road is classified as a 4-lane major roadway and currently exists in that configuration in the project area, with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Butterfield Stage Road is signalized at Highway 79 South. e Existing Traffic Conditions Table 4-18 summarizes the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the major area roadways and the corresponding level of service. ADT volumes on area roadways throughout the project area are based upon the traffic data collected by LLG Engineers at the key intersections and factored up from the peak-hour counts using the following formula for each intersection leg: PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) * 12 = ADT Existing peak hour manual intersection counts were conducted during the traditional weekday A.M. (7:00 - 9:00) and P.M. (4:00 - 6:00) peak hours on March 23, 2004. Supplementary counts were obtained in July of 2005 for the traffic study Addendum. Figures 4-10a and 4-10b show the A.M.jP.M. peak-hour turning movement volumes at the key intersections. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-72 Transportation e Table 4-18 Existing (2004 and 2005) Daily Traffic Volumes Street Segment Year Volume (ADT) Highway 79 South West of 1-15 freeway 2004 17.100 West of Pechanga Parkway 2004 57,300 West of Margarita Road 2004 38.100 West of Butterfield Stage Road 2004 20,400 East of Butterfield Stage Road 2004 15,200 Pechanga Parl<way South of Highway 79 South 2004 34,000 De Portola Road West of Pio Pico Road 2005 6,600 East of Pio Pi co Road 2005 7,000 Redhawk Parkway e South of Highway 79 South 2004 18,000 Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South 2004 12,400 South of Highway 79 South 2004 10.100 ~argarita Road De Portola to Dartolo Road 2005 23,500 Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 2005 23,500 Note: ADTs estimated from the Approach/I;xit volumes during the PM peak hour at the key intersections. e CITY OF TEMECULA 4.73 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL "g'~ 3 :S. o a n , "-3 o . : 5- z ~ - 0 0.3" (J'l , ~ n o 0 . i!:l. m- o i:' ~. "8 ~~ t ~ ~ 9 "- .. " 2 " m ~. III -+ :l l.C :;-i o "T1 ~-. _.l.C n C <'" o C1l -~ C I 3 <5 m 0 g ~ , o o .l , ~ ~ ~ .' > l i' N Q Q . Ul> ::T;:: 0,- "'-0 ";:: a ~-o ID ~a if" _.::T ,,0 ~c ID., 01< ~Q. ~c 03 "ID UlUl a ~ 881/951J 142/488, z ~ '" !(l ~~ -:::.":::- _N ~t ..II e sJ.ll' .\ g>'J.5l! 01 ,t '"' "<;: .". -. ~~ " "" 0" "0 ..... e ... ... e s'JtlO\~~~i '10 i<1\1' ... ... I 1 g; IQ 01 ;;- IQ: g l'- ;: Mia 1:1 .... ~ ! .L:J3rOHd 12 ~ ~ f--------..,~ 1il 1 I" 1 ~ >! I 1010 C/') 1 o~ I ~a I ~r-. I PROJECT! I... >~~I~~~t L.EI.!_-,-_ ______ I 1 (' COUNTRY 1 ~_ GLEN WY 1 -~ I ~::. -~ ::~ e ~o~ v~v ~~:;:;- '-- 96 /6. "1'lU) _999//.6. JI\,. ,. 9. /.. 23,500 <L /09 ...I MARGARITA RD .99/n<_ ""\1(' ,,/ '9...1 Ii ht .. H:6/LZl.- ~~~ eZI/ Sg" '" _mo N~~ e ~ o ~ , o ~ ~ ...... \/} E-< U k1 ...., o n:: 0.. 0" Do: o ....:1 o .... 0: o a. '" " PIO PICO o o 10 10 n~ N-v '" o ~NO ~~- .)I\,. '-- B9 /r9t _ vOt/S6l ,- t'l III ""\It" vom N_V '" o~o e-e --r------ I 1 1 91 &11 ~I 01 "'I ~I Oll I 1 I e ........ ~om VN~ -~~ '" ~~;: '-- f61/69t " _ION _ rog/er. ". .) I\,.,. Z<C/et, : \ ~~~~~~:!. '" t ( : ". 9n/Z9t" ~~ ~ ~, P:e~ N~_ .. ........ REDHAWK PKWY ~ o '- o o ~ ~ N , 0>= ..... o o .... IX) '" ....a Vl o Q) r- E ..t2 ~~ :l u 01'- .- ~ u. c ..= 01 c: '';:: Vl 'X w t- o E ~ .- . ~ ~ . o Dr Rc E c - 0 1! "il . ~ ~..5! o 0 " u .~ ~ w'" ~ ~ ... ~ '" ~ ;;, ,. ~ ! 0 ] 0 " ! u ~ 0 0 "3 "8 z u . , E 0 e '" ~ "0 " ~ 0 Transportation Current levels of Service e The current levels of service for study intersections and roadway segments were calculated based upon traffic counts and current intersection and roadway configurations. Table 4-19 summarizes the existing levels of service for the study intersections, and Table 4-20 indicates roadway service levels. (Also shown in the tables are LOS for future conditions at project build-out, which are discussed later in this section under the heading Environmental Impact.) As Table 4-19 indicates, all study intersections currently operate at or above the City's LOS D standard, except for the following: . Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps (A.M. peak hour) . Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps (A.M. and P.M. peak hours) . Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way (A.M. and P.M. peak hours) As Table 4-20 indicates, all study roadway segments intersections currently operate under the LOS D capacity. Related Regional Plans SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a multi-modal. long-range planning document prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The RTP includes programs and _ policies for congestion management, transit, bicycles and pedestrians, roadways, freight, and _ financing. The RTP is prepared every 3 years to address a 20-year projection of needs. Each agency responsible for building and managing transportation facilities, including the City of Temecula, has implementation responsibilities under the RTP. The RTP relies on local plans and policies governing circulation and transportation to identify the region's future multi-modal transportation system. Riverside County Congestion Management Program Urbanized areas such as Riverside County are required under state law to adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Riverside County CMP is updated every 2 years. The goals of the CMP are to reduce traffic congestion; to improve air quality, and to provide a coordination mechanism between land development and transportation improvement decisions. The CMP is administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). In 1997, RCTC significantly modified the original CMP to meet federal Congestion Management System (CMS) guidelines. This effort included development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System, in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTe to evaluate the condition of the eMS, as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the state and federal levels. As a result, the submittal of Traffic Impact Assessments for development proposals to RCTC is no longer required. However, the City is required to maintain minimum LOS thresholds identified in the General Plan and continues to require traffic studies on development projects. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-76 e Transportation Table 4-19 Intersection Operations - Existing Conditions and Phase I BACKGROUND EXISTING BACKGROUND BACKGROUND TRAFFIC EXISTING TRAFFIC TRAffiC WITH PHASE I WITH CONTROL PEAK WITH PHASE I WITHOUT PHASE I WITH PHASE I INTERSECTION INTERSEalONS TYP, HOUR IMPROVEMENTS. DELAy1 LOS1 DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Highway 79 South/I-15 AM > 100.0 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 42.4 D Southbound Ramp~ SIGNAL PM 48.6 D 52.1 D >100.0 >100.0 49.4 D Highway 79 South/I-IS AM 86.0 90.1 >100.0 >100.0 20.5 C Northbound Ramp~ SIGNAL PM 95.9 >100.0 >100.0 >100.0 30.3 C e Highway 79 South/La Paz AM 16.8 B 16.8 B 26.5 C 26.8 C 26.9 C Street SIGNAL PM 22.4 C 22.5 C 75.8 76.0 , 45.8 D Highway 79 Soulh/Pechanga AM 14.6 B 14.9 B 40.6 D 41.4 D 28.2 C Parkway SIGNAL PM 44.5 D 47.6 D >100.0 >100.0 51.8 D Highway 79 South/Avenida AM 3.' A 3.6 A 3.8 A 3.9 A 3.9 A De Mi~sione~ SIGNAL] PM 2.4 A 2.6 A 4.3 A '.5 A '.5 A Highway 79 South/Project AM >1006 F" 8.8 B >100.0 to.2 B 10.2 B Driveway/Country Glen Way OWSC7 PM >1006 F' 13.2 B >100.0 17.2 B 17.2 B Highway 79 South/project AM DN' DN' 12.2 B DN' DNE 12.5 B N/A N/A Driveway lW5C PM DNE DNE 16.3 C DNE ONE 16.9 C N/A N/A Highway 79 5outh/Redhawk AM 42.76 D' 44.0 D 52.4 D 63.8 46.2 D Parkway/Margarita Road SIGNAL PM 52.56 D' 54.6 D >100.0 >100.0 54.9 D C1TYOFTEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-77 TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL e e Transportation BACKGROUND EXISTING BACKGROUND BACKGROUND TRAfFIC EXISTING WITH PHASE I TRAFFIC TRAffiC WITH PHASE I WITH WITHOUT PHASE I WITH PHASE I INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS' Highway 79 South/Butterfield AM 17.2 B 17.3 B 50.2 D 54.5 D 39.9 D Stage Road SIGNAL PM 34.3 C 36.4 D 35.8 D 39.1 D 38.4 D Margarita Road/De Portola AM 23.26 C' 22.9 C 24.1 C 25.3 C NfA NfA Road SIGNAL PM 26.86 C' 29.7 C 29.3 C 30.1 C NfA NfA De Portola Road/Project OWSC6 AM DNE DNE 12.2 B DNE DNE 12.5 B 12.5 B Driveway PM DNE DNE 16.3 C DNE DNE 16.9 C 16.9 C Margarita Road/Dartolo SIGNAL AM 18.0 B Not Not 20.0 B 17.9 B 17.9 B Road6 analyzed analyzed PM 12.6 B Not Not 13.3 B 12.6 B 12.6 B anal zed anal zed NOTES: 1. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2. ONE - Does not exist 3. Assumed to be signalized since it is a condition of the Rancho Community Church Project 4. Intersection improvements are sho'Ml on Figure 12 of traffic study in Appendix 0 and are consistent with those recommended in the. APIS PLAZA" Traffic Study (RK Engineering Group, December 2003). 5. lWSC _ Two-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left.turn in delay is reported. 6. Analysis from Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (Appendix D of EIR) 7. OSWC _ One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay is reported. 8. OSWC _ One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left turn delay is reported. N/A - Not applicable since no significant impact is calculated. Phase I impacts for Margarita Road / Dartolo Road intersection were not analyzed within the Traffic Study Addendum. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSf'tT AL CITY OF TEMECULA 4.78 e e Transportation Table 4-20 Existing Conditions and Phase I Roadway link Analysis Rivemde County Temecula BACKGROUND TRAFFIC BACKGROUND TRAfFIC Maximum Maximum EXISTING WITHOUT PHASE I WITH PHASE I ROAOWAY LINK Two-Way Volume Two-Way Volume lOS"O" lOS"O" VOLUME VOLUME THRESHOLD THRESHOLD VOLUME THRESHOLD Highway 79 South Westofl-15Fwy 30,700 17,700 UNDER 28,152 UNDER 28,356 UNDER West of Pechanga Parkway 73,800 57,300 UNDER 94,704 OVER 98,064 OVER West of Margarita Road 55,200 38,700 UNDER 66,960 OVER 69,816 OVER West of Butterfield Stage 55,200 20,400 UNDER 35,376 UNDER 37,116 UNDER Road e East of Butterfield Stage Road 55,200 15,200 UNDER 23,724 UNDER 24,108 UNDER Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 South 66,600 34,000 UNDER 53,328 UNDER 54,084 UNDER Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 South 30,700 18,000 UNDER 27,348 UNDER 28,320 UNDER BuUerfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South 43,200 12,400 UNDER 18,984 UNDER 19,584 UNDER South of Highway 79 South 30,700 10,700 UNDER 20,508 UNDER 21,264 UNDER Note: Information for De Portoal Road and Margarita Road is presented in subsequent Table 4-24b. CITY OF TEMECUlA 4.79 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL e Transportation Thresholds Used to Determine level of Impact e The Temecula General Plan Circulation Element and the Riverside County CMP recognize LOS D as the minimum acceptable standard at signalized intersections. Caltrans typically uses the performance standard of LOS E for freeway ramps. Thus, operation of the proposed project will have a significant impact on the roadway network if it: . Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F (peak-hour ICU greater than 0.90), or . Causes a freeway ramp to operate at LOS F (peak-hour V /C greater than 1.00). Environmental Impact The analysis presented in this subsection proceeds as follows: Site Access Describes access assumptions in all scenario analysis Phase I Trip Generation Details trip generation assumntions for Phase I traffic analvsis Trip Distribution and Assi~nment Describes how trios are out onto the local road network Future Traffic from Cumulative Projects and Regional Growth Defines future background conditions absent the nroiect Background Traffic without Project Phase I Identifies future LOS without Proiect Phase I traffic Project Phase I with Background Traffic and No Improvements Identifies future LOS with Phase I traffic assurnino no irnnrovernents e The tables used and referenced throughout this section to summarize these scenarios also include right-hand columns that show LOS conditions with improvements. These scenarios are discussed below in the Mitigation Measures section_ Site Access Primary access to the site will be from 2 proposed driveways on Highway 79 South. The western Highway 79 South driveway, to be located directly opposite Country Glen Way, is proposed to be signalized, and the east driveway will function as a right-turn injright-turn out driveway. Secondary access will be via a single driveway to De Portola Road, with turning movement restrictions as described above. Reciprocal access to the property to the west is also proposed. Phase I Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were calculated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates (7'" Ed.) for the medical office buildings and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates (April 2002) for the hospital portion of the project. The SANDAG rate for hospitals was used instead of the ITE rate (about 12 ADT per bed) in order to provide a more conservative analysis. Table 4-21 shows the trip generation rates used. Based on these rates, Phase I of the project is estimated to generate a total of 6,290 ADT, with 350 inbound/124 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour, and 214 inbound/415 e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-80 e e e Transportation outbound trips during the P.M. peak hour. Trip generation associated with the project at build-out is discussed in the section titled Project at Build-out below. land Use Table 4-21 Phase I Trip Generation Daily AM PM Trip Ends Peak-Hour Trips Peak-Hour Trips Size Volume Volume %of In/Out %of In/Out Rate ADT ADT Split In Out ADT Split In Out 170 Beds 20.0/Bed' 3,400 8% 70:30 190 82 10% 40:60 136 204 80,000 sf 36.13/ksF 2,890 7% 79:21 160 42 10% 27:73 78 211 6,290 3S0 124 214 415 Hospital Medical Office Totals a. Source: SANDAG 'Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates', April 2002. b. ITE Trip Generation Rates 17. Ed.). Trip Distribution and Assignment The project Phase I traffic was distributed to the street system based on project access, the characteristics of the roadway system, the proximity to 1-15, the locations of surrounding residential communities, the location of other hospitals, and existing traffic counts along Highway 79 South. Other factors considered in determining trip assignment were the location of the medical office buildings and parking space placement. Figures 4-11a and 4-11b present the estimated project traffic distribution in the site environs. As shown in Figure 4-11 b, the majority of project trips, 70%, were assigned to the Highway 79 South driveways, with 28% assigned to the De Portola Road driveway and the remaining 2% assigned to the reciprocal access to the west and Country lilen Way. Future Traffic from Cumulative Projects and Regional Growth To assess opening year and build-out traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November, 2004 traffic study, a 4% growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes, and then a 17 cumulative projects were added. At the criticall-15/Highway 79 South intersection, background traffic assumptions, per the direction of City staff, were obtained from the Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis (RK Engineering, December, 2002). These assumptions are detailed in the traffic study contained in Appendix D of this EIR. Figure 4-12a shows the background traffic volumes without the project. In the traffic study Addendum dated September, 2005 which focuses on De Portola Road and the driveway access to this roadway, a similar approach was utilized. Figure 4-12b shows these existing plus general growth traffic volumes. CITY OF TEMECUlA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-81 ..~~ 3 ~, . 0 n , "-3 o . ;:0 a z CD e.. 0 5.3" X" ::J -g ~ 8..0. ib :I:~ o . . ~ "[~ "- t- m ~ ;;0 CD CO -. o ::J c ~ "'C "T1 -. gcg VI .., =rCD S'~~ \l. C I - --' ;ot -.-...1 ~c 0 C " ::J ~ g ~ 3 ~ -' . , ~ o ~ ~ .' > 1 ~ N g ~ ~~ !;:> :tl CD 10 o' :> Q. -< <l - ir <:> ~ a- t: ... is" :> ~\ e 4~.." .". e $5\" " s;tl!;S $ $'{f[ ~ ;:; -l if ~. ~ 30''''' ~ .~ "-<'" ~~ ~ ~ ~ e e ~ Xl _ ""~, e Pia Pica e ~ .. ~ N -,. '15% MARGARITA RD 'I .. ~ ~ j ,- 10. REDHAWK PKWY '" '" :s o 0- I'" ~ .... ~~ II.. ../a ~""I J:J3fOHd --------, r I e1 I - I r.i1 I ~ I rn I tH~ I PROJECT J j I D/W ~ r---- r 'I ""...) >.......I "z_ r.i1 I ""', >--" I o I a:: 0.. '" '" :s o 0- '" o 0., '" '" ~~ .. ~ ~ --f----.~~- I 01 ciJl [:JI 0.,1 01 01 :'il "'I I lSE: I Xl, 'Iii' ...... ~~o _N_ '" l'- ~ " o '" ~ ;:: Ul _Xl "' COUNTRY .; GLEN WY ~ ~ .. ~ ~ 0> " ~ c :5~ j$ ic o. .~ h ....., 1!~ H ~ , ~ < g . , , u ~ , 5 " e . o I I ~ I ~ z ~ ~ ~ Q ..0 l: r- 0 r-~ I :> -.::1"..0 (I) .;:: ...- :> .!!! .~C L1..a. is o l: o Ol ~ ~o Va t - o ~ g..a. ~ . o u:!: &.0 E c - 0 ""5 .0, ~ ~ E 0 ea .~ ~ w,! M m .; . " u ~ 0 o -, Z ~ E >" f~ .- " ~:;c o. .:if e ;t~ 3 :S. ~ g 5-~ :' ~ Z D - 0 0.3" VI , ~ n o a - i a. m g i;" ~. ] [::1. Et ~ o ~ 5 ~ -, , ~ ~ ~ .' > 1 ~ .~ ~ o o ~ ,,:lJ..~1 1514/15J9J1 290/669..... ~ . . . . . . . . . ..,t " ~~ 'c:, .- =Cl ..... ... ... e z ~ .. ~ .. .. \:XI C 10> n :T~ 0,- ^ ~" : 10 :J~ .., C 0 ..." "",,O!sS$.. . c ...<D :TO 'la."4C1\ ::l <D" a. _. :T ~ :JO ........... ......... !DC c iil' ~ <D~ 0_ ~C n 03 ~ :J<D 10m ... 0 C ~ 3 CD lI> ..... .... ... ... ..... ;s ~~ :.-! . ..jj~........ ..... ~ :::i: "T1 :r -. 010 C C -.., CD n "'tJ .j>.. ~ .., <L 0 I '" ..... ! CD "-> n C e " - e ........ .. vro~ ~oro v '" nv~ '- oe /Z9 ... vN~ ro _se /l.O~ : ..II\,. ,6a/eLl . : ZZI/CS ..J ""III"" : : eoZ/Z9 - ... H:z/rrr -, NroN _ro~ N~N '" ~ro~ ~ov '- 6f /t~ -~- .... ....... - ror/oa _ 9Sr/66Z ,9~ /L~ ro It 8000 8100 REDHAWK as/tzt- MARGARITA RD ""II"" PKWY I"" 1;9S/9tt- NN 0 " V NN , N N I I ~ I'" I'" 0 '" , 0 r-- ~ JA/a l:i 10 ~ I J.:JarOHd I 2 '" N :::> --------...,'" 0 I l<l '" z I ~ N I ;.: N ~ v~ ., I ~N I " ........ ~v '" \f) I ~N 0'" '-1;1/01 0 I PROJECT I\,. "':i h L Djlr ,oz/or 0 I I"" COUNTRY ... l.) I '" I GLEN WY 0 kl N~ 0.. I vN V "" ...., I " '" 0 -~ ~- ro PIO PICD n:: 0... v v 0 N 0 , '" ~ ~ - I --r------ I I N I v v I , 31 ~)~ ell ~I 01 0 ",I 0 ~I 10 '" ! ill I N I ~ 1 , I j ] , 5 0 e ~ ~ N . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u . .J:I III N ~ r- 0 'LL. -.::t Q).!:! ...::t: :) 0 .~.= LL._ u Q) o ... a.. Q) .~ - o :) E :) u t- o .. 0.- . 0 ~ . o 0:1: Kg E c - 0 E "5 ~ r:! E 0 6""5 , u .- . ~ E w,. "' "1 ~ . " u ~ 0 ~ a ~ eo" ... G Transportation Background Traffic without Project Phase I e Intersections Previous Table 4-19 summarizes future intersection operations based on projected traffic volumes absent the proposed project and absent any improvements. Table 4-19 indicates that the majority of the study intersections will operate at LOS E or F with the addition of cumulative traffic from surrounding developments and ambient growth. Specifically, the following intersections will experience deficient operating conditions, per the City's criteria, absent project traffic: . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita - P.M. peak Roadway links Previous Table 4-20 shows that the majority of the roadway links in the project area will continue to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the following two roadway links: . Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road Background traffic volumes for Phase I absent the project were not calculated for Margarita Road e between DePortola Road and Highway 79 South. Project Phase I with Background Traffic and No Improvements Intersections Previous Table 4-19 summarizes future intersection operations based on projected traffic volumes with Phase I project traffic added to cumulative background traffic. In addition to the intersections cited immediately above that are expected to experience LOS E and F conditions absent the project, project traffic will cause the following additional intersection location to decline to LOS E or F: . Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road - A.M. peak Absent mitigation, this impact is significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact. Also, Phase I project traffic will contribute to future deficient operating conditions at: . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak e ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-86 e e e Transportation . Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita - P.M. peak Roadway links Previous Table 4-20 shows that the addition of the majority of Phase I project traffic to background traffic will not result in any additional roadway segments operating over capacity. Phase I project traffic will contribute to cumulative impacts along the two roadway segments identified above: . Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road Cumulative Phase I traffic impacts on these two roadway segments are significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact. Phase I roadway link impacts were not calculated for Margarita Road between DePortola Road and Highway 79 South. Project at Build-out Trip Generation Summary Trip generation estimates for the project at build-out used the same assumptions described above for Phase I. Table 4-22 shows that at build-out, the project is expected to generate a total of 11,458 ADT, with 637 inbound/228 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour and 334 inbound/595 outbound trips during the P.M. peak hour. Table 4-22 Project at Build-out Trip Generation Daily AM PM Trip Ends Peak Hour Trips Peak Hour Trips land Use Size Volume Volume Rate %of In/Out %of In/Out ADT ADT Split In Out ADT Split In Out Hospital 320 Beds 20.0/Bed' 6,400 8% 70:30 358 154 10% 40:60 256 384 Medical Office 140,000 sf 36. 13/ksF 5,058 7% 79:21 279 74 10% 27:73 78 211 n-otals 11,458 637 228 334 595 a. Source: SANDAG 'Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates', April 2002. b. ITE Trip Generation Rates 17th Ed.). CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-87 Transportation Trip Distribution/Assignment e Total project traffic was distributed and assigned to the street system based on the same distribution (see Figures 4-11a and 4-11 b) and access assumptions as the Project Phase I traffic. Project at Build-out Conditions Table 4-23 shows that at build-out, project traffic, combined with cumulative background traffic, will result in the majority of the study intersections operating at LOS E or F. Traffic associated with long- term operation of the Temecula Regional Hospital will create new deficiencies at the following 7 locations: . Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - LOS E at P.M. peak hour Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - LOS F at P.M. peak hour Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour Margarita Road/Highway 79 South - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road - LOS E at A.M. and LOS F at P.M. peak hour . . . . . . Impact will be significant at these intersections. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the _ level of impact. _ Roadway Analysis Tables 4-24a and 4-24b present information regarding roadway segment impacts in the project study area at build-out. Both tables are included because two approaches were used describe the impacts. Table 4-24a is from the November 4, 2004 Traffic Impact Study and uses an over/under threshold approach to describe the level of impact, while Table 4-24b from the Traffic Impact Study Addendum shows the resultant LOS for the project at build-out. Table 4-24a shows that except for the 2 roadway segments identified below, all roadway links in the project study area will operate at LOS D or better with the addition of project traffic . Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road Table 4-24b shows that the 2 roadway segments identified below will operate at LOS E or F upon build-out of the proposed project: . Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road . Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Impact will be significant at these roadway links. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-88 e Transpoltiltion Tobie 4-23 Project at Build-out Intersection Operations BACKGROUND BACKGROUND BACKGROUND TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC WITH TOTAL PROJECT CONTROL PEAK WITHOUT TOT At WITH TOTAL PROJEcr WTH INTERSEcrlON INTERSEcrlONS PROJEcr TYP, HOUR IMPROVEMENTS. DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps AM :> 100.0 > 100.0 51.6 D SIGNAL PM > 100.0 > 100.0 53.6 D Highway 79 South/I-IS Northbound Ramps AM > 100.0 > 100.0 37.8 D SIGNAL e PM > 100.0 F > 100.0 36.9 D Highway 79 Soulh/La paz Street AM 26.8 C 27.5 C 26.7 C SIGNAL PM 76.0 74.5 46.3 D Highway 79 SouthfPechanga Parkway AM 41.4 D 40.9 D 28.8 C SIGNAL PM >100.0 >100.0 S4.8 D Highway 79 South/Avenida De Missiones AM 3.8 A '.3 A ,.3 A SIGNAl3 PM 4.3 A 6.0 A 6.0 A Highway 79 5oUlh/Project Driveway/Country Glen Wayr AM >100.0 >100.0 29.8 C OSWC5 PM >100.0 >100.0 48.7 D De Portola Road/Project Driveway AM DN' DN' 14.1 B 14.1 B OWSCs PM DNE DNE 21.5 C 21.5 C Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road SIGNAL AM 63.8 64.0 46.6 D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITfOF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-89 e e Transportation BACKGROUND BACKGROUND TRAfFIC BACKGROUND TRAFfiC WITHOUT TOTAL TRAFFIC WITH TOTAL PROJECT PROJECT WITH TOTAL PROJECT WTH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS' PM >100.0 >100.0 54.7 D Highway 79 South/Butterfield Stage Road AM 50.2 D 54.3 D 40.8 0 SIGNAL PM 35.8 D 40.0 0 40.1 D Margarita Road/De Portola Road7 AM 23.7 C 25.0 C 23.2 C SIGNAL PM 43.6 D 45.3 0 13.5 B De Portola RoadjProje<::t Driveway7 OWSC5 AM ONE DNE 9.7 A 9.7 A PM DNE DNE 13.8 B 13.8 B Margarita RoadjDartolo Road7 SIGNAL AM 20.0 B 23.2 C 23.2 C PM 13.3 B 13.5 B 13.5 B e Margarita Road/Highway 79 South7 SIGNAL AM >100 >'00 53.8 D PM >100 F >'00 54.5 D NOTES: 1. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. 2. ONE. Does not exist 3. Assumed to be signalized 5ince it is a condilion of the Ran<::ho Community Chur<::h Proje<:t 4. TWSC - Two-way stop controlled intersection. 5. OWSC - One-way stop <::ontrolled intersection. 6. Interse<:tion improvements are shown on Figure 12 in the traffic study (Appendix 0) and are consistent with those recommended in the "APIS PLAZA" Traffic Study (RK Engineering Group, De<:ember 2003). 7. Analysis from Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (Appendix 0 of HR) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMKulA REGIONAl HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4.90 e e Transportation Table 4-24a Projed at Build-out Roadway Analysis (Original Traffic Study) Riverside County BACKGROUND TRAffiC Maximum T emecula Maximum WITH TOTAL PROJECT ROADWAY LINK Two-Way Volume Two-Way Volume LOSD LOSD VOLUME THRESHOLD Highway 79 South West of '-15 Freeway 30,700 28,572 UNDER West of Pechanga Parkway 73,800 97,452 OVER West of Margarita Road 55,200 72,180 OVER e West of Butterfield Stage Road 55,200 38,544 UNDER East of Butterfield Stage Road 55,200 24,432 UNDER Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 South 66,600 54,708 UNDER Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 South 30,700 29,136 UNDER Buuerfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South 43,200 20,100 UNDER South of Highway 79 South 30,700 21,876 UNDER ENVlRONMENTAllMPACl REPORT TEMECUtA REGIONAL HOSPITAl em OF TEMECUlA 4.91 e Transportation e Table 4-24b Project at Build-out Roadway Analysis (Traffic Study Addendum) Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS E)' Existing Existing + Cumulative Projects Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project AD1" LOS' ADT LOS ADT LOS [)e Portol. Ro.d Nest of Pio Pico Road 14,000 14,000 6,600 7,000 c c 7,500 7,900 c 9,220 9,620 D D East of Pia Pico Road c lMargarita Road De Portola Road to Dartolo Road 36,000 36,000 23,500 23,500 B B 31,500 31,600 D D 33,400 33,500 E E Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South NOTES: a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D). b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. c. Level of Service. e Summary of Traffic Impacts The project will result in the following significant traffic impacts requiring mitigation: Phase I Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-92 Transportation e Project at Build-out Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak hours . Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak . Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour . Margarita Road/Highway 79 South - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour . Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts: . Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road . Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road . Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Mitigation Measures e To mitigate the proposed project's portion of the cumulative impacts at intersection locations and along roadway segments where impacts are expected to be significant, the project applicant will be required to contribute a fair share toward planned future improvements at these locations. The Traffic Study in Appendix D details the project's share of total peak-hour traffic for both Phase I and build-out. The City has identified roadway improvements needed to meet LOS standards at the study area intersections due to the addition of both project and background traffic. The project applicant/permittee will be required to contribute fair-share payments for the following improvements: T-1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way with the following configuration: Westbound: 1 right-turn lane 3 through lanes 1 left-turn lane Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes 2 through lanes 1 shared through/right lane Northbound: 1 left-turn lane 1 shared through/right lane e 4-93 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA Transportation Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes 1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide) e T-2. The project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South intersection at 1-15. T-3. The project applicant/permittee will contribute a fair share toward the provIsion of the following roadway improvements to address the project's contribution toward cumulative impacts: Intersection Required Improvements ighway 79 South/I-TS Southbound Ramps Additional southbound left-turn lane Highway 79 South/I-TS Northbound Ramps Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert westbound right lane to free right turn Highway 79 South/La Paz Road Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and one shared through/right lane Additional northbound left~turn lane, plus eastbound and northbound free right-turn lanes Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway Highway 79 South/PrOject Driveway/Country Glen Way Signalize and provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-turn lanes with a shared through/right-turn lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane for westbound approach. e Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road Provide southbound and eastbound dual left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps. T-4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola Road developed to the specifications of the Public Works Director. level of Impact after Mitigation Phase I with Improvements For Phase I development, the key study area intersections and roadway links were reanalyzed with lane configuration improvements outlined above. Intersections Previous Table 4-19 summarizes Phase 1 traffic conditions with improvements at the key intersections in the project area. With the improvements, all key intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. With mitigation, Phase I intersection impacts will be less than significant. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-94 e e e Transponation Roadway links Previous Table 4-20 shows that with the exception of the following roadway links, all links will continue to operate under capacity: . Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road Cumulative roadway link Phase I impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Project Build-out with Improvements For the project at build-out, the key study area intersections and roadway links were reanalyzed with lane configuration improvements outlined above. Intersections Previous Table 4-23 summarizes project build-out traffic conditions with improvements at the key intersections in the project area. With the improvements, all key intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. With mitigation, project build-out intersection impacts will be less than significant. Roadway Links Previous Tables 4-24a and 4-24b show that with the exception of the following roadway links, all links will continue to operate at LOS D or better: . Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South . . . Cumulative roadway link impacts at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-95 Transportation This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 4-96 e e e e e e 5.0 Alternatives to the Project The following discussion considers alternatives to the proposed project and examines the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative. Through comparison of these alternatives to the project, the relative advantage of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives be addressed, "governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126.6[f]). The CEQA Guidelines also state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or reducing them to a less than significant level while achieving most of the major project objectives. The analysis presented in the prior sections of this EIR indicates that development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in significant, unavoidable impacts for the following: . Short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts . Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights . Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts All other impacts will be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The following project alternatives are examined: Alternative 1: No Project - No Build Alternative 2: No Project - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site - Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only The degree of specificity used in the alternatives analysis parallels the approach used for the project, which is project level. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(d) states, "The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project ... If an alternative would cause one or more significant environmental effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project (County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles [1981]124 Cal.App.3d I)." This section also explores variations of the proposed project considered during preparation of the EIR but rejected as potential alternatives. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-1 Alternatives to the Proiect Project Objectives e Development of the project is proposed to achieve the following project objectives, as outlined in Section 3, Project Description of this EI R: City Objectives: The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: . Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services . Support development of biomedical, research and office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base . Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions . Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of T emecula . Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses . Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City Objectives of the Applicant: The objectives of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: e . Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities . Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices . Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors . Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures Alternative Considered but Rejected During the course of EIR preparation and project review, the City considered an alternative that involved reduced building heights of the hospital bed towers. This building height alternative was considered because it would meet the existing General Plan height requirement and eliminate the need to process a General Plan Amendment for the proposed height increase of the proposed project. In response to this consideration, the project architect provided a letter (contained in Appendix F of this ElR) describing functional reasons for the proposed tower heights. According to e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL C1lY OF TEMECULA 5-2 e e e Alternatives to the Project the project architect, the hospital bed towers respond to several functional needs of the hospital that are required per the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and the California Building Code, Chapter 4A, Division III: . To establish primary relationships between Emergency Departments and Imaging, Emergency Department and Surgery, and all three departments and patient rooms . To respond to a required "vertical flow" for in-patient care and services . To respond to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development requirements for relationships between nurse stations and patient rooms . To allow for optimum patient transfer efficiencies . To provide efficiencies in mechanical and electrical systems . To anticipate future medical service needs in the area and build for them now, rather than later The City rejected the alternative of lower hospital towers from further consideration in light of project objectives and the applicant's need to achieve functional and operational efficiencies in project design. Alternative 1: No Project - No Build CEQA requires evaluation of a no project alternative, which means "...the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 [e][2]). The existing conditions on the project site are described in Section 3.0 (Project Description). The No Project Alternative assumes that site conditions would remain the same as existing conditions and no development would occur in the near future. Potential impacts associated with Alternative 1, No Project.. No Build are described below. Alternative 1 would have no impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since the site would remain vacant. Aesthetics The No Project Alternative would maintain the undeveloped, open character of the site. There would be no change in views of the project site from residential locations, and no new sources of light would be added to the area. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse aesthetic impacts. Air Quality No significant air quality impacts associated with vehicle emissions and electric power and natural gas use would be generated on the project site since vacant land does not generate vehicle trips and does not result in use of electricity and natural gas. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse air quality impacts. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-3 Alternatives to the Project Hydrology and Water Quality e Alternative 1 would not result in development, increased impervious surfaces, or any modification to the site. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse impacts regarding hydrology and water quality. Noise Alternative 1 would not result in any construction on the project site, additional traffic on local roads, or changes in land uses on the site. No helipad would be constructed. Therefore, this alternative would not result in adverse short-term or long-term noise impacts. Transportation Alternative 1 would not generate any additional vehicle travel to or from the site and would not alter existing circulation patterns. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse traffic and circulation impacts. Conclusion This alternative would avoid the significant air quality impacts associated with the project and would not generate any additional traffic. No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be less than those resulting from the proposed project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, it meets none of the project objectives identified by the applicant and the City. e Alternative 2: No Project Current General Plan Development Pursuant to The No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan assumes that the project site ultimately would be developed pursuant to current General Plan land use policies, goals and policies, and zoning criteria. The site would be developed pursuant to the standards of the Professional Office (PO) General Plan designation and the applicable zoning of PO and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). This development scenario could yield approximately 769,000 square feet of commercial and office development, based on current zoning regulations and an assumed floor-area ratio of 0.5. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impacts with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing. public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project with a maximum height of 50 feet, and the analysis in this Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not create significant impacts in these areas. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 5.' e e e Alternatives to rhe Project Aesthetics As with the project, Alternative 2 could result in development on the entire project site. The maximum height limit of 50 feet would reduce the overall scale of development. There would be no need to amend the General Plan to accommodate increased building height. Lower buildings would conform to surrounding development patterns. This alternative would result in a less than significant impact on the visual character of the site and surrounding uses. Future development would result in increased nighttime lighting impacts due to streetlights, automobile headlights, and security and outdoor lighting. The General Plan includes policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and to minimize impact on surrounding uses. The City has adopted Riverside County's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655) that also minimize impacts to the Palomar Observatory. These policies and ordinance would be implemented on the project level and would be required for Alternative 2. Thus, this alternative would have aesthetic impacts similar to those of the proposed project. Air Quality Alternative 2 wili not avoid the significant and unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts associated with the project. This alternative, as described below under Transportation, could potentially generate more than 50% more vehicle trips than the proposed hospital project. An increase in vehicle trips would cause a correspondingly increased air quality impact by increasing criteria pollutants in the proposed project area. Like the project, this increased volume would generate levels of carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions in excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds. Impact would be significant. With this alternative, due to the scope of construction, oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions from construction vehicle exhaust would be expected to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold; this would represent an unavoidable, significant construction-related air quality impact. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in increased urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. Under Alternative 2, construction of commercial and office uses would require a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RQWCB), which outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit to reduce stormwater pollution. Furthermore, all new commercial and office development projects encompassing 100,000 square feet or more of floor area would be subject to the Water Quality Management Plan requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Noise New development would generate additional traffic that would increase noise levels along the roadway network. As described below under Transportation, Alternative 2 could potentially generate more than 50% more trips than the proposed hospital project. Since decibels are logarithmic units, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic would potentially increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Therefore, these added trips would increase roadway traffic noise. Also, depending upon site design characteristics and the type of commercial and professional office land uses developed, additional on-site noise sources could result. Thus, CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-5 Alternatives to the Project Alternative 2 could have potentially greater roadway and on-site noise impacts than the proposed project. e Because Alternative 2 would not include a helipad, the potentially significant noise impact associated with this noise source would be avoided. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative 2, the site would be developed consistent with existing General Plan land use policy and zoning for the site. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation would continue to apply to the project site. The Professional Office designation allows primarily single- or multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Office developments are intended to include low-rise offices situated in a landscaped garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at appropriate locations. Surrounding uses include commercial and professional office development to the east and west (some currently under construction), and residential development across De Portola Road and Highway 79 South. Compatibility with surrounding uses would be achieved, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to land use and planning because no General Plan Amendment or Zone Change would be required. Transportation Assuming that under Alternative 2, approximately 769,000 square feet of commercial and office development would occur on the site, and assuming an average weekday trip generation rate of 42.92 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of development (ITE Trip Generation use code 820), Alternative 2 could generate up to approximately 33,000 daily trips, compared to 11 A58 associated with the proposed hospital development. This represents a substantially greater number of vehicle trips that could potentially create a reduction in service levels at key intersections. Given the magnitude of difference in trip generation between Alternative 2 and the project, impacts of Alternative 2 are considered greater than those associated with the project. e Conclusion Impacts of Alternative 2, No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan could result in potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with helicopter operations would be avoided. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the proposed hospital project. This alternative would not attain the City's objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, nor the applicant's objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. Alternative 3: Alternate Site - Corona Family Properties Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site. Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 5-6 e e . Alternatives to the Project conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. Alternative sites include vacant sites of approximately 35 acres in the surrounding area, similar to the project site. The feasible alternative site considered for this project includes land now owned by Corona Family L TD Partnership located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South, as shown in Figure 5-1. The site is comprised of three adjacent parcels totaling approximately 39.5 acres (APN 952150003, 9.61 acres; APN 952150001, 9.56 acres; and APN 952150002, 20.34 acres). The two smaller parcels are designated within the General Plan as Community Commercial and are zoned for Community Commercial use. The larger, 20+ acre parcel is not located within the City limits, but rather adjacent to the City within the County of Riverside. The project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20. All properties would need to be under the applicant's control for the project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel. The potential impacts of this alternative site are described below. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impact with regard to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project, and all other provisions of the proposed project would be implemented. Aesthetics This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of single-family subdivisions, with the County parcel developed as a corn maze in the agricultural zone. There is some commercial development south of Highway 79 South across from this alternate site, on properties within the jurisdiction of Riverside County. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in development of the entire site with the uses proposed, and with hospital bed towers of 5 and 6 stories. Given the low-intensity development on surrounding properties in the City and the more rural character on County lands, the project at this location could result in a development inconsistent in scale and character with the surrounding built and rural environments. The development could be considered intrusive at this location. Future development would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and the City's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655). Neither Highway 79 South nor any other roadway in the project vicinity is designated a Scenic Highway in the T emecula General Plan or by any State agency. The General Plan does not identify any view corridors or areas of special visual significance in the project vicinity. However, given the visual setting of this alternative site, the proposed project at this location could be considered to have aesthetic impacts. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUIA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5.' e \ De Portola Rd e \ -,' Sourcf'5: County of Riverside, 2003; CilyofTemf'cula,2005 Legend Alternative Project Site Boundary Temecula City Boundary ~ HH o .25 I Miles .s Figure 5- 1 Alternative Site e Environmentollmpoct Report Temecvlo Regionol Hospitol City 01 Temeculo S-B e e e Alternatives to the Project Agricultural Resources The project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20. The parcels are identified in the City's General Plan as Farmland of Local Importance. Development of this site would convert land designated and zoned as farmland and parcels identified as Farmland of Local Importance to a non- agricultural use. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources. Air Quality The proposed project will result in NO~ CO, and ROG emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds. Aiternative 3 involves the same level of development and thus would not avoid significant and unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts. Under this alternative, ROG emissions would remain at 224 Ibs/day, and NO, emissions would remain at 216 Ibs/day (due largely to the application of architectural coatings). Construction vehicle exhaust would continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold; like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have an unavoidable significant adverse construction impact related to air quality. Like the proposed project, at operation, Alternative 3 would result in pollutant emissions in excess of the SCAQMD emissions thresholds for ROG, with a total of 94 Ibs/day and a total of 1,144 Ibs/day of CO emissions during operations. Therefore, like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have an unavoidable, significant operational air quality impact. Biological Resources Any development planned at this alternate site would require a biological assessment for the purposes of providing a preliminary evaluation of the overall biological constraints on the site. As required by the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). a Burrowing Owl survey would be necessary to verify the presence/absence of Burrowing Owls and to determine if mitigation is required per the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Until a biological assessment and focused surveys of the alternative site are completed for Burrowing Owls and other species, the impact of this alternative cannot be compared to the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. Under Alternative 3, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the RQWCB, which outlines BMPs in the MS4 permit to reduce stormwater pollution. With compliance of the existing regulations, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning Under this Alternative, as with the proposed project, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application would be required for the 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses in the Community Commercial zone. A height variance would also be required CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TI:MECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-9 Alrematives to the Proiea to allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for the hospital towers. Additionally, use of the 20+ acre parcel (APN 952150002) for a hospital would require a General Plan Amendment and zone change, as well as annexation to the City of Temecula, which would require Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval. This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of single-family subdivisions. There is some commercial development south of Highway 79 South across from this alternate site in the County and other agricultural parcels to the east of the site. As described above in Aesthetics, the use at this location could be considered out of character given the urban/rural interface, existing agricultural uses in the County, and the low-scale nature of surrounding residential development. e Noise Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 3 would result in comparable development, and the total traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would be similar. This alternative may necessitate slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential neighborhoods, as seen on the aerial photographs, than the flight paths associated with the project. Therefore, this alternative would have a greater noise impact relative to the project. The helicopter noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of number of flights per month, the uncertainty of the flight path, and the preponderance of single-family homes in the surrounding area. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be potentially greater than those associated with the project. e T ronsporlalion Under Alternative 3, project trip generation would be the same as that associated with the proposed project, with 11 A58 estimated average daily trips. The level of impact at specific intersections cannot be ascertained without a detailed traffic study. Given the location adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road, some trips could be expected to be diverted north along this route to other 1-15 access points, perhaps reducing project trips on Highway 79 South. The applicant would be required to reduce impacts to the City LOS D standard at impacted intersections. Thus, traffic impacts could be considered comparable to those associated with the project. Conclusion Alternative 3 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use cornpatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Also, Alternative 3 would require annexing a portion of the site into the City of Temecula. Noise impacts of this alternative could be greater due to slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to determine impacts. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 5-10 e e e Alternatives to the Project Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road This alternative was conceived as a means of providing a secondary access from the east of the project site via Dartolo Road in lieu of the proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road. Alternative 4 would require the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. For Alternative 4, no access to De Portola Road would be provided, and those vehicles oriented to/from De Portola Road under the proposed project have instead been assumed to utilize Dartolo Road as an access point. As with the proposed project, the access points along Highway 79 South were assigned the majority of the project trips (63 percent), with a slightly lesser percentage of trips to Dartolo Road (33 percent) and the remaining (4 percent) project traffic assigned through the reciprocal access to the adjacent development to the west and to Country Qlen Way. Utilizing Dartolo Road as an access point would provide direct access to Margarita Road at a signalized intersection. According to City staff, there has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road intersection. However, currently there are no plans to do so. This analysis focuses only on the traffic and biological resource impacts associated with this alternative since otherwise, the project would remain the same as proposed. The discussion is drawn from the traffic study Addendum contained in Appendix D. Transportation Tables 5-1 and 5-2 show the intersection and roadway segment analysis results for Alternative 4. This analysis is based on the City's goal for intersections and street segments to operate at LOS D during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Table 5-1 shows that during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, LOS D or better could be achieved at the key intersections affected by site access configuration. Table 5-2 shows that segments of De Portola Road surrounding the site will also achieve LOS D or better on a daily peak-hour basis, assuming the ultimate configuration of De Portola road as a 4-lane Modified Secondary Arterial, as provided for in the Qeneral Plan. The Margarita Road street segments are calculated to operate at LOS E on a daily basis with the addition of cumulative project and project traffic. Providing access via Dartolo Road as opposed to De Portola Road would result in about 550 fewer average daily trips (ADT) on De Portola Road. The Dartolo Road access alternative adds a maximum project ADT of 1,150 to De Portola Road, while the De Portola Road access restriction adds approximately 1,l00 ADT to De Portola Road. The Dartolo Road access alternative scenario would not add traffic to Pio Pico Road. The opening of Dartolo Road as a through access from the project site to Margarita Road would degrade operations at the Dartolo/Margarita intersection, which currently experiences southbound and northbound traffic queues on Margarita Road of more than 300 feet. These queues commence at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and extend north past the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road signalized intersection, adding delay to both intersections. The spacing between these 2 intersections is approximately 300 feet, and 90-foot left-turn pockets are provided on Margarita Road. The minimum desired spacing between signalized intersections on a road such as Margarita Road is approximately 600 feet. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-11 Alternatives to the Project e Table 5-1 Intersection Ooerations - Access from Darlolo Road Alternative Existing + Control Peak Existing Existing + Cumulative Intersection Cumulative Projects Projects + Type Hour Project Delay' LOSb Delay LOS Delay LOS AM 23.2 C 23.7 C 25.1 C De Portola Road/Margarita Road SIGNAL PM 26.8 C 43.6 D 45.1 D Margarita Road/Project Driveway OW5Cd AM DNE N/A DNE N/A DNE N/A PM DNE N/A DNE N/A DNE N/A AM 18.0 B 20.0 8 26.1 C Margarita Road/Dartolo Road SIGNAL PM 12.6 8 13.3 B 25.3 C Margarita Road/Highway 79 AM 42.7 D > 100.0 F 53.8 D' SIGNAL South PM 52.5 D > 100.0 F 54.8 D' Highway 79 South/Project AM > 100.0 F > 100.0 F 27.4 C' Driveway/Country Glen Way OWSC PM > 100.0 F > 100.0 F 51.6 D' e Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b_ level of Service. c. LOS with planned mitigation. d. OWSC - One Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major left-turn delay is reported. ONE - Intersection does not exist e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 5-12 e e e Alternatives [Q the Project Table 5-2 Seament ODerations - Access from Darlolo Road Alternative Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS E)' Existing Existing + Cumulative Projects Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Am" LOS LOS' ADT LOS ADT Je Portola Road Nest of Pio Pico Road ast of Pio Pico Road c c 8,650 9,050 D D 14,000 14,000 6,600 7,000 c c 7,500 7,900 Margarita Road De Portola Road to Dartolo Road Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South B 31,500 D 34,365 E 36,000 23,500 36,000 23,500 B 31,600 D 34,465 E Footnotes: a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D). b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. c. Level of Service Dartolo Road is located too close (only about 300 feet) to Highway 79 South at its signalized intersection with Margarita Road. Under current conditions, queues on Margarita Road extend past Dartolo Road. Adding traffic to this intersection would create longer queues that would negatively impact operation of the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection than are leaving the intersection, which would result in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection, thus forming long queues. If the traffic signal were removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. In addition, there would be only a small positive benefit (550 fewer ADT) to De Portola Road if direct site access is not provided via De Portola Road. De Portola Road can accommodate the additional project generated traffic with the De Portola access scenario. Under Alternative 4, providing alternative site access via Dartolo Road rather than De Portola Road increases queuing on Highway 79 South and would result in increased delays to traffic on Margarita Road, while a small positive benefit is achieved for De Portola Road. Thus, adverse traffic and circulation impacts of this Alternative would be greater than those associated with the project. Biological Resources Under Alternative 4, a vehicular bridge would need to be constructed across the flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site. Although the flood control channel CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5.13 Alternatives to the Proiect is a man-made structure, it contains riparian vegetation such as willows, cottonwoods, and wetland vegetation such as cattails and bulrushes. Due to the type of habitat that is present in the flood control channel, the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. Construction of a bridge, with supports outside of the channel. would avoid streambed alteration, the placement of fill material in the channel. and encroachment into the jurisdictional areas. Impacts to riparian vegetation would not be completely avoided. Because of the type of habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would need to be conducted to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If either of these endangered birds is found, bridge construction schedules and activities would have to be modified to avoid impacts to the birds' reproductive cycle.' Both the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered species and protected under the MSHCP. Pursuant to the MSHCP and the California Environmental Quality Act. burrowing owl surveys were required for the proposed project and would apply to this Alternative as well. Focused surveys were completed as part of the proposed project analysis. The study documenting the surveys concluded that no burrowing owls are present at the project site. Refer to Appendix E for the burrowing owl focused survey report. The impact to biological resources under this alternative would be greater than the proposed project because of potential impacts associated with construction of the bridge. A jurisdictional delineation would be required for the alternative, and consultation with the U.s. Army Corps of Engineers would be recommended. Additionally, the potential for impacts to 2 endangered bird species exists under this alternative, and impacts to riparian vegetation would require additional mitigation. Conclusion Traffic and biological resource impacts of Alternative 4, Access from Dartolo Road, could be greater than those associated with the proposed project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection than are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal were removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South, as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. Additionally, the biological impacts of Alternative 4 would be greater than those of the proposed project, as the Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the project. This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. 1 AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14, 2004. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 5-14 e e e e e e Alternatives to the Project Alternative 5: Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 5 was conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in conjunction with the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road access, as described for the proposed project, would be provided with Phase I, with access limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound left-turns would be prohibited. Upon construction of Phase II, this alternative would require a third access via an extension of Dartolo Road, as described above for Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 5 would involve the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. A detailed traffic analysis was conducted for Alternative 5 as part of the traffic study Addendum (Appendix D). As with the proposed project, the project driveway on Highway 79 South was assigned the majority of the project trips. Utilizing Dartolo Road as an access point in the later phases of the project would provide direct access to Margarita Road at a signalized intersection. According to City staff, there has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road intersection. However, currently there are no plans to do so. This analysis focuses only on the traffic and biological resource impacts associated with this alternative since otherwise, the project would remain the same as proposed. The discussion is drawn from the traffic study Addendum contained in Appendix D. Transportation Tables 5-3 and 5-4 show the intersection and roadway segment analysis results for Alternative 5. The analysis uses as a threshold the City's goal for intersections and street segments to operate at LOS D during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Table 5-3 shows that LOS D or better would be achieved at the key intersections during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, with mitigation. Table 5-4 shows that the De Portola Road street segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better on a daily basis. However, the Margarita Road street segments are calculated to operate at LOS E with the addition of cumulative project and project traffic. This impact would be significant. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-15 Alternatives to the Project e Table 5-3 Alternative 5 Project Phase I Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Roadl Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Phase I Delay" lOS' AM 22.0 C De Portola Road/Margarita Road SIGNAL PM 38.2 D De Portola Road/Project Driveway AM 9.7 A OWSC' PM 13.2 B Margarita Road/Dartolo Road AM 17.9 B SIGNAL PM 12.6 B AM 53.8 D' Margarita Road/Highway 79 South SIGNAL PM 54.9 D' Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country AM 22.5 C' SIGNAL e Glen PM 46.6 D' Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. level of S~rvice. c. OWSC - One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left-turn in delay is reported. d. LOS with planned mitigation. e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 5-16 e e e Alternatives to the Project Table 5-4 Project Alternative Project Phase I Segment Operations 'Access to De Partala Road) Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS E)' Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project ADP Lose De Portola Road West of Pio Pico Road 14,000 14,000 8,440 8,840 D D East of Pio Pico Road \o1.argarita Road De Portola Road to Dartolo Road Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 36,000 32,570 E 36,000 32,670 E Footnotes: a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D). b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. c. Level of Service Tables 5-5 and 5-6 show the analysis results for the Alternative 5 at build-out, with both the De Portola Road and Dartolo Road accesses provided. Table 5-6 shows that operations are anticipated to be LOS D or better at the key intersections during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, with mitigation. Table 5.6 shows that the De Portola Road street segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better on a daily basis. However, the Margarita Road street segments are projected to operate at LOS E with the addition of cumulative and project traffic. This impact would be significant. With the extension of Dartolo Road, the same queuing concerns on Margarita Road cited above for Alternative 5 would occur due to the current traffic signal at Dartolo Road/Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection then are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal was removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-17 Alternatives to the Project Table 5-5 Alternative 5 Total Project Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Roadl e Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing + Cumulative Projects + Total Project Delay' lOSb AM 22.7 C De Portola Road/Margarita Road SIGNAL PM 43.4 D De Portola Road/Project Driveway AM 9.6. A OWSC' PM 13.4 B Margarita Road/Dartolo Road AM 24.0 C SIGNAL PM 25.7 C AM 53.0 Dd Margarita Road/Highway 79 South SIGNAL PM 54.6 Dd Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country AM 35.4 Cd SIGNAL e Clen Way PM 52.1 Dd Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. level of Service. c. OWSC - One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left-turn in delay is reported. d. LOS with mitigation of a traffic signal and other conditioned intersection improvements. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 5-18 e e e Alternatives to the Project Table 5-6 Alternative 5 Total Project Segment Operations IAccess to De Portala Road and Dartolo Road} Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS E)' Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project ADT" LOS' De Portola Road West of Pio Pico Road East of Pio Pico Road 9,220 9,620 D D 14,000 14,000 Margarita Road De Portola Road to Dartolo Road Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 36,000 34,400 E 33,090 E 36,000 Footnotes: a. City of T emecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D). b. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes. c. level of Service Biological Resources With Alternative 5, a vehicular bridge would need to be constructed across the flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site. Although the flood control channel is a man-made structure, it contains riparian vegetation such as willows and cottonwoods, and wetland vegetation such as cattails and bulrushes. Due to the type of habitat that is present in the flood control channel, the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. Construction of a bridge, with supports outside of the channel, would avoid streambed alteration, the placement of fill material in the channel, and encroachment into the jurisdictional areas. Impacts to riparian vegetation would not be completely avoided. Because of the type of habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would need to be conducted to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If either of these endangered birds is found, bridge construction schedules and activities would have to be modified to avoid impacts to the birds' reproductive cycle.' Both the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered species and protected under the MSHCP. 1 AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14, 2004. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-19 Alternatives to the Project Pursuant to the MSHCP and the California Environmental Quality Act, burrowing owl surveys were required for the proposed project and would apply to this Alternative as well. Focused surveys were completed as part of the proposed project analysis. The study documenting the surveys concluded that no burrowing owls are present at the project site. Refer to Appendix E for the burrowing owl focused survey report. e The impact to biological resources under this alternative would be greater than the proposed project because of potential impacts associated with construction of the bridge. A jurisdictional delineation would be required for the alternative, and consultation with the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers would be recommended. Additionally, the potential for impacts to 2 endangered bird species exists under this alternative, and impacts to riparian vegetation would require additional mitigation. Conclusion Alternative 5 would not avoid the significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from the proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the De Portola secondary entrance. Biological resource impacts associated with Alternative 5 would be greater than those associated with the proposed project. The Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the project. This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. e Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, Construction of the Hospital Only, would result in a smaller development with no medical office buildings, cancer center, or fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative is considered as a means to reduce the overall impact of the proposed project while still providing the community with a regional hospital. Alternative 6, similar to the proposed project, would have no significant impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a project with a reduced building footprint and less building area, and the analysis in the Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not create significant impacts in these areas. Aesthetics As with the project, Alternative 6 would result in development of a 408,160-square-foot hospital structure, including towers of 5 and 6 stories. The overall mass of the developrnent would be reduced by the development of a smaller portion of the project site, but a similar visual effect would result relative to the scale of the two hospital towers. As with the project, this Alternative would e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECUtA 5-20 e e e Alternatives to the Project involve placement of the towers in the center of the site and ensuring that any such hospital is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of building materials and landscaping, Extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings would be provided. Incorporation of these project features would minimize aesthetic impacts. Like the proposed project, Alternative 6 would result in increased nighttime lighting impacts due to streetlights, automobile headlights, and security and outdoor lighting. The General Plan includes policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and to minimize impact on surrounding uses. The City adopted Riverside Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655) that also minimize impacts to the Palomar Observatory. These policies and ordinance would be implemented on the project level and be required under Alternative 6. Thus,. this alternative would result in aesthetic impacts similar to those of the proposed project. Air Quality Air quality impacts with this alternative would be reduced since no medical office buildings, cancer center, or fitness rehabilitation center would be built, and both stationary and mobile source emissions would be comparably reduced. A decrease in vehicle trips would result in reduced pollutant emissions and thus reduced air quality impacts. Also, because the scale of construction would be reduced, construction-related pollutant emissions would be comparably reduced. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 6 would result in an increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to storm runoff. With Alternative 6, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which sets forth Best Management Practices in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to reduce stormwater pollution. Compliance with existing regulations such as the RWQCB MS4 permit would reduce impact to a less than significant level. similar to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning With this Alternative, as with the proposed project, a General Plan Amendment would be required to eliminate the Z2 overlay area. Also, the applicant would need a Zone Change to facilitate the development and the hospital tower heights in particular. The reduced scale of the project could allow for greater setbacks, which could create increased buffer zones to minimize noise impacts associated with mechanical equipment, and which could allow for enhanced landscaping around the hospital.. While land use and planning impacts would be similar, the indirect result could be to reduce noise impacts. Noise Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 6 would result in 2,890 fewer total daily trips to and from the project site due to the absence of the medical office buildings. Therefore, this alternative would have a marginally reduced traffic noise impact relative to the proposed project because fewer trips would be generated. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-21 Alternatives to the Pro;ect Outdoor noise sources would be reduced due to fewer on-site uses. The increased setbacks would provide the opportunity to locate mechanical equipment more toward the interior of the site and thus avoid potential impact on the nearest residential uses. However, because the helipad would remain as part of the project, helicopter noise impacts could be significant and unavoidable, like the proposed project. e Transportation Alternative 6 would result in 2,890 fewer total daily trips to and from the project site due to the absence of the medical office buildings. Under Alternative 6, traffic generation and resulting levels of service (LOS) would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Conclusion Alternative 6 would result in reduced impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there would be a reduction in the total footprint of development. Therefore, the visual impact, trips generated by the project and short- and long-term air quality impacts would be less than those associated with the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with mechanical equipment could be reduced. While Alternative 6 meets the City's objectives to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding uses, Alternative S fails to meet the City's objective to support development of biomedical. research, and office facilities to diversify T emecula's economic and employment base. Furthermore, Alternative 6 does not meet applicant's objective to provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would result only in construction of the hospital. and would not provide the same levels of rehabilitation or any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant's objectives. e Environmentally Superior Alternative Table 5-7 summarizes the impacts of each of the Alternatives relative to the project. Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECUlA 5-22 e e e Alternatives to the Project Table 5-7 Comparison of Impads of Alternatives Relative to Impads of the Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Alternative 5: Alternative 6: No Project - No Project - Alternate Site Access from Access from Construction of Impact Category No Build Development Corona Family Dartolo Road Deportola the Hospital Under CUrTent Properties Road and Only General Plan Dartolo Road Aesthetics Avoided Reduced Greater Similar Similar Reduced Aoriculture Resources Avoided Similar Greater Similar Similar Similar Air Jualih, Avoided Greater Similar Similar Similar Reduced Biol02ical Resources Avoided Similar Undetermined Greater Greater Similar Cultural Resources Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Geolopv and Soils Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Hazards and Hazardous Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Materials Hydrology and Water Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar O~alih' land Use and Planni~ Avoided Reduced Greater Similar Similar Reduced Mineral Resources Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Noise Avoided Reduced Greater Similar Similar Similar Ponulation and Housin Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Public Services Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Recreation Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Transoortation Avoided Greater Similar Grealer Similar Reduced Utilities and Service Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Systems Meets all objectives of No No Yes Yes Yes No the nroiect? (ITYOF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAl HOSPITAl ~-23 Alternatives to the Project Alternative 1, No Project - No Build would avoid all impacts since no development would occur and the land would remain vacant; however, this alternative meets none of the project objectives. Alternative 2 would reduce land use and planning impacts but would not achieve the City's objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, nor the applicant's objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. Alternative 3 would achieve each of the project objectives, but aesthetic, land use and planning, and noise impacts would be greater than those associated with the proposed project. The biological impacts of Alternative 3 are also uncertain because a biological assessment would need to be performed. Alternatives 4 and 5 would meet the all of the project objectives but would result in greater impacts with regard to biological resources and transportation. Traffic impacts would be greater since queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. Impacts to jurisdictional waterways and riparian vegetation communities would result from the construction of the vehicular bridge across the flood control channel. Although Alternative 6 fails to meet many critical project objectives, it is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative since it has the potential to reduce more environmental impacts compared to the rest of the Alternatives considered in this EIR. CITY OF TEMECUIA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-24 e e e e e e 6.0 Cumulative and Long- Term Effects The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 et seq. require discussion of cumulative impacts, growth- inducing impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes resulting from a project. The following addresses each of these issues as they relate to the development and operation of the proposed regional hospital in T emecula. Cumulative Effects The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15355) define a cumulative impact as "...an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." The Guidelines further state that "...an EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the evaluated project." Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of cumulative impacts of a project "...when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable." Cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(c), "...means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." An adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts requires either "...a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the lead agency" or "...a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact." This cumulative impact analysis evaluates impacts based primarily on 21 related projects identified by the City of Temecula. Discussions with City of Temecula staff and the authors of the most recent traffic study conducted in the area indicated that The Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by RK Engineering Group in December 2002 should be utilized as the source of other development project information in the area. Further information regarding these projects can be found in Appendix D, Traffic Impact Analysis. The 17 cumulative projects analyzed in the Apis Plaza study were supplemented with 4 additional projects for which applications have been submitted between December 2002 and August 2005. Aesthetics As summarized in Section 4.1 Aesthetics, the proposed project will not result a significant impact on the viewshed of residential lots north of De Portola Road. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a cumulative viewshed impact. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6-' Cumulative and Long-Term Effects The proposed project and cumulative projects will allow for new housing units and commercial, industrial, and institutional development within the southern portion of Temecula. Cumulatively, these projects have the potential to increase the amount of artificial light sources throughout the area, which could interfere with operations at Mount Palomar Observatory. However, all projects will be required to comply with the outdoor lighting restrictions of Ordinance No. 655 related to Mount Palomar Observatory. Compliance with this ordinance will reduce the impacts of skyglow on the Observatory to below a level of significance. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in cumulative lighting impacts on Mount Palomar Observatory operations. e Air Quality The goal of the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other agencies involved in air quality protection is to reduce the amount of average daily vehicle trips, as well as the distance traveled by vehicles, within the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin). This goal is aimed at reducing the primary sources of air pollutant emissions in the Basin: automobiles and trucks. The SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan encourages local jurisdictions to adopt and implement land use policies that balance employment opportunities and housing so that residents do not have to travel far for jobs, entertainment, and other needs. As discussed in Section 4.6, Transportation of this EIR, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, other known projects, and ambient growth will increase vehicles on area roadways. These trips will all contribute to increased pollutant loads locally and within the Basin as a whole. Cumulative impacts will be partially reduced by implementation and achievement of emissions levels identified in the AQMP and air quality components within the Temecula lieneral Plan. However, given that the proposed project itself will result in emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds, the cumulative effect will be significant ,as well. Potential short- and long-term cumulative air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable despite mitigation incorporation described in Section 4.2, Air Quality and measures imposed on other projects as well. e Hydrology and Water Quality The project site lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Drainage patterns and the quality, velocity, and composition of runoff will be altered by large-scale grading of areas planned for construction, as well as the creation of impervious surfaces, including roads, driveways, parking lots, patios, and similar surfaces. Runoff entering storm water drainage systems is anticipated to contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, thereby potentially impacting downstream water quality. Siltation resulting from exposed ground surfaces from grading, prior to establishment of landscaping, and construction of 'structures and hard surfaces also may affect downstream water quality. Impacts related to runoff and siltation will be controlled on a project-by-project basis by adherence to requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Typical measures to implement the NPDES program could include covering all outside storage facilities, vegetated swales, detention basins with filtration systems, and monitoring programs. The NPDES system has been put in place to address cumulative, regional impacts. Continued implementation of the NPDES permitting requirements will reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. e ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT TfMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 6-2 e e . Cumulative and Long-Term Effects Potential cumulative impacts related to flooding will be minimized through implementation of design standards required by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and by adherence to the to the Flood Control District's Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to flooding will be less than significant. land Use and Planning The proposed project and cumulative growth will result in changes to existing land uses. Vacant properties will be developed pursuant to the recently updated T emecula General Plan, leading to intensification of housing, commercial, and industrial development throughout southern Temecula. As concluded in Section 4.4, Land Use and Planning. the proposed project will not result in the introduction of incompatible uses in the area if the General Plan Amendment is approved by the City Council, the Council has determined to be consistent with the General Plan. All other proposed projects must either be consistent with the General Plan, which has been formulated to achieve compatible land use patterns, or deemed to be acceptable by the Planning Commission and/or City Council in actions to approve projects. Each proposed development project will be subject to the City's development review process and, if discretionary actions are needed, may undergo an environmental review process, as prescribed by CEQA. This review would address potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy conflicts. Therefore, cumulative land use and planning impacts are considered less than significant. Noise Increased development within the broader project area will increase traffic volumes and associated roadway noise levels. Significant noise levels already exist along many of the transportation corridors in the City and project area. As noted in Section 4.5, Noise, the project's contribution to cumulative traffic noise will not be significant. With regard to stationary noise sources, at the individual project level. the City will continue to ensure that new buildings are constructed according to State acoustical standards. Furthermore, City implementation of General Plan Land Use and Noise Element policies aimed at avoiding land/use noise compatibility conflicts will reduce cumulative noise impacts to a less than significant level. Transportation New residential, commercial, industrial, and other development occurring throughout the project area will increase the number of vehicle trips to, through, and from the surrounding area. Future traffic volumes and levels of services are discussed in Section 4.6, Transportation. Vehicle trips from the project and related projects are anticipated to create or add to traffic congestion on Highway 79 South, especially near the 1-15 ramps, and at selected roadway segments and intersections. The twenty-one (21) cumulative projects generate a total of 160,500 ADT with 5,560 trips in the AM peak hour and 6,130 trips in the PM peak hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be confined to the area (short trips), while others would travel outside the project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the regional transportation system. Adverse impacts to the circulation network would occur if CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6~3 Cumulative and Long-Term Effects roadway improvements and trip reduction measures and programs are not implemented. The mitigation discussion in Section 4.6, Transportation identifies some of the regional roadway improvements that will be pursued to accommodate anticipated future traffic volumes. Also, other roadway system enhancements will be pursued over the long term to implement the recently updated General Plan Circulation Element. e In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development project will be assessed its fair share for identified roadway improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the City to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation programs and improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections. Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment of fair share fees and citywide and project-level roadway improvements. As summarized Section 4.6, Transportation, the proposed project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the following roadway links will continue to operate over capacity: . Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway . Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road . Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road . Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near 1-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant and unavoidable.' e Growth-Inducing Impacts The CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of "...ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth... in the surrounding environment", including the project's potential to remove obstacles to population growth. For example, the provision of major infrastructure may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. The project site is located within an area of Temecula that is fully served by urban infrastructure systems. The proposed hospital/medical office complex represents an infill development that will provide no excess infrastructure capacity; water, sewer, and storm water systems are in place to support the level of development proposed. Thus, the project does not have any components or features that could induce further growth at the site or into previously undeveloped areas. The project is a regional hospital facility that will provide new jobs, and these new jobs could potentially induce support development (e.g., additional medical-related businesses) in the surrounding area. The surrounding community is nearly built out with or entitled for residential dwellings, and surrounding vacant land is zoned for commercial and professional office use. Medical-related businesses would be permitted in these existing zones. The proposed project, 1 Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Page 5.13-23. Certified April 12, 2005. e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA 6.' e e . Cumulative and Long-Term Effects therefore, is not anticipated to induce population or jobs growth beyond that which is already planned for and anticipated by adopted land use policies. Temporary construction work related to the project is expected to be accomplished by existing construction workers in the regional area; a permanent influx of new construction workers to the area will not be required. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Construction and day-to-day operations of the proposed project will use nonrenewable resources. During construction, the use of building materials (e.g., aggregate, sand, cement, steel, glass) and energy resources (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel. electricity) would be largely irreversible and irretrievable. Energy would be consumed in processing building materials and for transporting these materials and construction workers to the site. Institutional structures can be expected to have a life span of approximately 50 years. The resources consumed during project operation will be in quantities proportional to similar projects in Southern California. Title 24 (Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code) energy conservation standards are mandatory and will be applied to the project. Vehicles used by employees and visitors of the hospital will consume motor fuel; however, these activities are part of normal operations and are not considered a significant or wasteful use of resources. Water will be consumed by the project and in operation of the project's buildings and irrigation. Mandatory water conservation standards, including ultra-low toilets, low-water shower heads and faucets, and other features, will be applied to the project. Considering the long life span of the project, the nonrenewable resources consumed for this project are insignificant compared to the total annual use of resources regionally. Therefore, no short-term or long-term significant adverse impacts on nonrenewable resources are expected to result from the project. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL !MPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6-5 Cumulative and Long- Term Effects This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6-6 CITY OF TEMECULA e e e e e e Lead Agency City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Emery Papp, Senior Planner Planning Department 7.0 Preparers of the fiR Tel: (909) 694-6400 Fax: (909) 694-6477 Email: emery.papp@cityoftemecula.org Project Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc. Universal Corporate Center 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Vice President: Tel: (610) 768-3300 Fax: (610) 992-4560 Donald Pyskacek, AlA, ASHE Consultants to the Lead Agency Environmental Consultant P&D Consultants. 800 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 Principal-in-charge: Project Manager: Environmental Planner: Environmental Planner: Graphics: Laura Stetson, AICP Jeff Henderson, AICP Peter Choi Debra Leight Paul Levinson CITY OF TEMECULA ,.] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Preparers of the fIR Tel: (626) 304-0102 Fax: (626) 304-0402 e Traffic Consultant Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street San Diego, CA 92111 Principal: Transportation Planner: John Boarman Jose R Nunez Jr. Tel: (858) 300-8800 Fax: (858) 300-8810 Noise Consultant Wieland Associates, Inc. 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 114 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Principal: Senior Associate: David Wieland Jonathan Higginson e Tel: (949) 829-6722 Fax: (949) 829-6670 Biological Consultant AMEC Earth & Environmental 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92507 Principal Investigator: Chet McGaugh Tel: (909) 369-8060 Fax: (909) 369-8035 e ENVIRONMfNTAllMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA '.2 e e e Water Supply Assessment RBF Consulting 3536 Concours, Suite 220 Ontario, CA 91764 Project Manager: Tel: (909) 581-0196 Preparers of the ElR Ron Craig CITY OF TEMECULA '-3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Preparers of the fiR This page is intentionally left blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL '.4 CITY OF TEMECULA e e e e e e 8.0 References AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14, 2004. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. California Department ofTransportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca_gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ Date accessed: August 11, 2005. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District. May, 1993 with updates through 2001. City ofTemecula General Plan, adopted April 2005. City of Temecula, Public Works Department. NPDES information. http://www.cityoftemecula.org/cityhalljpub_works/landDev/npdes.htm Date accessed: August 10, 2005. County of Riverside. Outdoor Lighting Regulations - Ordinance 655. Effective July 6, 1988. Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: DatajAnalyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter. February 1984. Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental5tudy. April 15, 1987. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995. Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC Company). Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center. November 2004. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003. Parker, John. H. A Concise Dictionary of Architectural Terms. Dover Publications. June, 2004. Regulation Compliance Inc. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study. December 16, 2004. Riverside County Flood Control District. "About the District." http:j jwww.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.usjdistrictsitej Date Accessed: August 9, 2005. Riverside County Flood Control District. "Area Drainage Fees." http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/Downloads/ Area Drainage Plain Summarv.pdf. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 8.1 References Riverside County Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program. Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Santa Ana River Region and Santa Margarita Region. September 17, 2004. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) "Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates." April 2002. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwacb9/orograms/basinplan.html. 1994. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Data 1990-2004. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECUlA 8.2 e e e . . Appendices . . . Appendix A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and NOP Responses . City of Temecula Planning Department . Notice of Preparation To: Distribution List (Attached) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Consulting Firm: P&D Consultants 800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 Contact: Phone Number: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400 Contact: Laura Stetson, AICP Phone Number: (626) 304-0402 The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached . materials. A copy of the Initial Study LL is _ is not) attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Emery Papp at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital Project Location: City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Project Description: A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. . Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Date L:\env\8300s\8302 _ OO\IS\NOP .doc City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List e PROJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital DISTRIBUTION DATE: August 2,2005 CASE PLANNER: Emery J. Papp CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety................................... (x) Fire Department..................................... (x) Sheriff .................................................... ( x ) Parks & Recreation (TCSD)................... (x) Planning, Advance................................. (x) Public Works.................:........................ (x) STATE: Caltrans ................................................. ( ) Fish & Game.......................................... (x) Mines & Geology................................... ( ) Regional Water Quality Control Bd........ (x) State Clearinghouse (15 Copies)........... (x) Water Resources................................... (x) FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers ...................... ( x) Fish and Wildlife Service ....................... (x) Bureau of land Management ................ (x) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District ............ (x) Western Riverside COG ........................ (x) L :\env\6300s\8302 _00\1 S\NOP .doc RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Airport Land Use Commission............... (x) Engineer................................................ ( ) Flood ControL........................................ (x) Health Department ................................ (x) Parks and Recreation............................ ( ) Planning Department ............................ (x) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ( x ) Riverside Transit Agency...................... (x) Transportation ....................................... (x) CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning ................................................ ( ) e UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District ........... (x) Inland Valley Cablevision ...................... (x) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ... ( x ) Southern California Gas. . .. ... ... . ... (x) Southern California Edison.................... (x) Temecula VlIlIey School District............ (x) Metropolitan Water District.................... (x) . Verizon .................................................. (x) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ............... (x) Eastern Information Center ................... (x) Local Agency Formation Commission ... ( x ) RCTC ................................................... (x) Homeowners' Association ..................... ( x ) Los Ranchitos Santiago Estates . County of San Diego, Planning Dept..... ( ) . Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (attachment) Lead Agency: City ofTemecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Consulting Firm: P&D Consultants 800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 Contact: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner Contact: Laura Stetson, AICP Phone Number: (951) 694-6400 Phone Number: (626) 304-0402 Issues to be analyzed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Hospital, as determined by a scoping session held on April 20, 2005 include the following: Aesthetics Height, massing, and view impacts Air Qualitv Construction and daily operations Hvdroloav and Groundwater On-site drainage Land Use and Plannina - General Plan and Zoning Amendments are required Noise Issues Operations related to helipad and potential for increased traffic related noise . Traffic/Circulation Issues - Potential neighborhood street impacts Proiect Alternatives . . City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Proiect Title Temecula Reaional Hospital lead Aaency Name and Address Cilv of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Emerv J. Paoo, AICP, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400 Project Location North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximatelv 700 feet west of Margarita Road Project Sponsor's Name and Address UHS of Delaware, Inc. 367 South Gulp Road. King of Prussia, PA 19406 General Plan Desianation Professional Office IPoT Zoning Existing: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8) Proposed: Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) Description of Project The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468). The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z-2 overlay designation from the General Plan. The Z -2 designation currently limits the height of buildings to two stories within the project area. The zone change is a request to change the zoning of the project site from Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-8 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center and a helipad space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. This Initial Environmental Study (IES) has been prepared for the hospital and related medical office buildings. While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in the IES and draft Mitigation Monitoring Program with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to aoolv onlv to the non-hospital facilities. Surrounding land Uses and Setting Surrounding land uses include Highway 79 South and single-family residences to the south, single-family residential to the north, professional office, commercial and educational to the west (currently under construction) and existing offices and commercial to the east. Temecula Creek is approximately 1000 feet to the south and Interstate 15 is located approximately 2 miles to the west. Other public agencies whose approval Other public agencies which may require approval andJor is required subsequent permits include: U.S Army Corps (USACE), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG.), U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS.), Cal Trans, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Riverside County Flood Control, Airport land Use Commission (ALUC), California State Division of Aeronautics, Riverside County Health Department. . . Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources Aariculture Resources X Noise X Air Qualitv Population and Housina Bioloaical Resources Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geoloav and Soils X TransportationfTraffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems X HydroloaY and Water Qualitv X Mandatory Findinas of Sianificance X Land Use and Plannina None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reauired. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed proiect, nothina further is reauired. e e Signature Date Emerv J. Papp. AICP. Senior Planner Printed name For . z . 1. AESTHETICS, Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunnnrunn Information Sources Imnact Inco":'orated Imn::>ct lmnact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X within a state scenic hiahwav? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X Quality of the site and its surroundinQs? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the X area? Comments: 1. a.: No Impact According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is not located on or near a defined scenic vista, therefore, there will not be an adverse impact on a scenic vista. . 1. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The residential areas to the north of the project site currently maintain views of mountain areas such as Palomar Mountain. The proposed project includes two hospital bed towers that are 5 and 6 stories high and medical office buildings up to 4 stories. It is anticipated that views of Palomar Mountain will be impacted as a result of the project. The current City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element indicates a Specific Plan Overlay exists on the site that requires all buildings constructed at the proposed location be limited to one or two stories. The tallest portion of one of the proposed hospital bed towers is at more than 100 feet high with the eave line of the top floor at approximately 85 feet. As a result, there is a General Plan Amendment as part of this project that would eliminate the Specific Plan Overlay for the site, leaving the underlying Professional Office zoning district to determine the maximum height requirement. The current Development Code calls out a maximum building height of 75 feet in the Professional Office zone. A Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) is also being proposed for this site only to allow the proposed height bed tower height. The current underlying zoning designation does allow buildings up to 75 feet in height. If the General Plan Land Use Element Specific Plan Overlay were eliminated on this site, the hospital could be constructed to a height of up to 75 feet under current zoning. Impacts to views in the area would not be additionally impacted by allowing the bed tower to exceed 75 feet. It is recommended that the proposed General Plan Amendment to remove the Specific Plan Overlay and the Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) be evaluated in a Focused Environmental Impact Report to address the impacts to surroun'ding properties resulting from the proposed height of this project. 1. c: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site is located between a State Highway (79 South) to the south and very low density residential (2.5 acre minimum) to the north. The project site is currently vacant. The residential area immediately north of the project is an area with large-lot single family rural and equestrian homes. The current General Plan Land Use Specific Plan Overlay on the subject property was put in place to protect the residential area from large scale commercial development. Highway 79 South and Margarita Road in the vicinity of the subject project site are commercial corridors. This property is considered to be a suitable location for the proposed project, and there is a demonstrated need for the proposed project in the community. However, the impacts to views and other aesthetic impacts created by the mass of the proposed buildings must be analyzed in a focused EIR for this project as it will require a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Amendment to obtain approvals for the proposed height. e 3 1. d.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare typically associated with a hospital and medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The project will introduce outdoor lighting and is required to comply with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code and Riverside County Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The Development Code and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of one- foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading and circulation areas and a minimum of two-foot candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. In addition, the project includes conditions of approval requiring all outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. e The two towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors, however as a condition of approval, all windows above the second floor will require glazing andJor tinting in order to reduce the glare. Glazing andJor tinting will reduce the illumination andlor glare from the proposed project. The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. Decorative lighting is allowed, however decorative lighting is required to be shut-off by 11 :00 P.M. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11 :00 PM, the amount of light andJor glare will be reduced during late evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research from the Mount Palomar Observatory. The following are Mitigation Measures andJor Conditions of Approval that are recommended as a part of the proposed project and will be imposed via condition or agreement, either of which will ensure the impact is mitigated to a less than significant level: a. Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded, directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be _ shut-off by 11:00 P.M. . b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan detailing the proposed light levels for the entire project site, onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate. c. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at project boundaries. d. All windows above the second floor of the hospital andJor medical office buildings shall maintain glazed windows andJor tinting (non-reflective glassJwindows) to reduce the amount of glare that is emitted from the upper floors. e. The Applicant shall plant, irrigate as necessary and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15 gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site and include berming or a solid wall with acoustic attenuation along the northern property line and where the project site abuts residential parcels. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any walls andJor berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels in order to screen aesthetic impacts. . 4 . 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially Potentially SignifLcilnt Unless less Than SignifICant Mitigation SignifICant No Issues and SUDoortina Information Sources Imoact Incomorated Imoad Imnact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and X Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion X of Farmland, to non-aQricultural use? Comments: 2. a. b.: No Jmpact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15- 20 years) the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The project site was historically used for agricultural uses as noted in the HistoricalJArchaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. During the mid 1800's the project site was cultivated as an agricultural field. However, . the project site has not been utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable agricultural resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing envir6nment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 2. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project could, because of its regional significance, cause other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some remaining agricultural uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and surrounding areas that could be converted to uses other than agricultural, however the conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the proposed project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of San Diego County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the proposed project. Therefore, the growth of the surrounding area is a result of external economic forces rather than the proposed project. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . 5 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Signiftcant Mitigation Signiftcant No Issues and Sunnnrtinn Information Sources lmnact Incomorated tmnact lmoact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air Quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existina or proiected air auality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient X air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed Quantitative thresholds for ozone orecursors\? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? e Comments: 3. a. - e.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is not able to meet the thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for clean air standards in the region. The realization of the project will not obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan goals, but is likely to be in conflict a with the policies established in the Regional Air Quality Plan. The City of Temecula has identified a need in the. community for the proposed project and will carefully analyze the merits of the project and weigh them against the air quality goals and objectives for the region in a Focused EIR for the project.. An Air Quality Study for the proposed project was prepared by Regulation Compliance inc., Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, December 16, 2004. The study identified two primary areas of concern that may cause potentially significant impacts; construction emissions and operational emissions. The below table summarizes the daily construction emissions for the proposed project. Table 1 Dailv Construction Emissions Emissions Source Pollutants (lbsJday) ROG NOx CO PM10 Construction Emissions 42 266 353 363 Mitigated Construction 42 266 353 184 Emissions SCAQMD Significance 75 100 550 150 Thresholds Exceed Thresholds? NO YES NO YES The NOx and PM10 emission levels exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels of significance. However, while the NOx and PMlO levels cannot be mitigated to a level that does not exceed the threshold, PM10 can be mitigated a to a level much less than without mitigations. . 6 The below table summarizes the daily operational emissions for the proposed project. e Table 2 Dailv Onerational Emissions Emissions Source Pollutants (lbsJday) ROG NOx CO PMlO Area Source Emissions 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01 Vehicular Source Emissions 81.1 101.64 1071.46 115.4 Total Unmitigated Emissions 81.49 105.47 1073.97 115.41 Unmitigated Area Source 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01 Emissions - Mitigated Vehicular Source 76.46 95.13 1002.98 108.01 Emissions Total Mitigated Emissions 76.86 98.96 1005.49 108.02 SCAQMD Significance 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 Thresholds Exceed Thresholds? YES YES YES NO . Table 2 above identifies ROG, NOx and CO as exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds levels of significance. The primary generator of operational emissions is from vehicular source emissions. Area source emissions such as heaters, air condition units and other machines are not considered a significant generator of emissions. The study (Regulation Compliance, December 16, 2004) has concluded that the implementation of the project would result in short-term impacts as well as long-term impacts. The short term impacts are a result of the exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx during construction activities. The long term impacts are a result of exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG, CO and PM10. The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The Environmental Protection Agency designates areas of Ozone (03), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) as either "Does not meet the primary standards", "Cannot be classified", or "Better than national standards". The primary air quality problems in the area are ozone and particular matter. The Basin has been designated as an "extreme" non-attainment area for ozone. The Basin exceeds both the state and federal standards for ozone and both the state and federal standards for particular matter PM10. The State standard for Ozone (03) is 0.09 parts per million (PPM) for one hour and the Federal standard is 0.12 ppm for one hour. The state standard for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is 0.225 ppm for one hour and the Federal standard is 0.53 ppm annual average. The State and Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO) are 9 ppm and 9.5 ppm respectively averaged over eight (8) hours. The State standard for particular matter (PM10) is 50 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours and the Federal standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours. The Air Quality Management District no longer maintains a station for measuring air quality standards in the Temecula area. The closest station to the project site is the Lake Elsinore station, which was used as a . reference station for the Air Quality Study (Temecula Regional Medical Center, Air Quality Study, December 16,2004). The study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 16 2004) includes language indicating that due 7 to the geographical location and the wind pattern of the area (Elsinore Convergence Zone), Temecula generally maintains cleaner air quality that other parts of Riverside County. The most productive method for reducing vehicle emissions aim at reducing vehicle miles traveled. Alternative e modes of transportation, sidewalks, trails, street and parking lot lighting using low-sodium vapor lights, mature trees, drought resistant vegetation, pedestrian signalization and signage at significant intersections adjacent to the project site assist in reducing the impacts from emissions. The above measures are designed into the proposed project andJor will be required as conditions of approval andJor mitigation measures. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will also be required, which includes incentives for employees utilizing alternative mode of transportation, including preferential parking for car and vanpools, offering flex schedules to employees and encouraging employees to utilize mass transit such as local buses. TOM practices are designed into the proposed project andJor will be required as conditions of approval andJor mitigation measures. The applicant has proposed a Riverside Transit Agency (RT A) bus turn-out along Highway 79 South, which will provide alternative opportunities to employees. The applicant is required to cooperate with RTA and Caltrans to finalize the location and design of the bus stop. The proposed project may potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is considered non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator in regard to the immediate surrounding area. However, the project site may be a significant pollutant generator for the South Coast Air Basin since the basin is currently a non-attainment area. The air quality study identifies the Temecula area as having significantly cleaner air than the other areas in the South Coast Air Basin. The cleaner air in the Temecula area is due to the geographical location and prevailing wind pattern. While the project site is located within a non-attainment area, the project as a stand along project is not considered to emit pollutants considered significant. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the City of Temecula EIR and as specifically discussed below. . The City of Temecula has adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Citywide General Plan Update. The EIR identified various significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution 05--43, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan" on April 12, 2005. The Final EIR includes a statement of overriding consideration for these impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Included as part of the statement of overriding consideration were air quality standards and compliance with SCAQMD air quality plan. The application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change; however these applications request a change to the height of the building only. The applications do not request an intensification of the uses allowed, floor area ratio, or lot coverage of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation within the current General Plan, but is inconsistent with a current Specific Plan overlay for the site which limits development to one or two stories. As a result, a General Plan Amendment is proposed to remove the Specific Plan Overlay designation from the General Plan for the project area. The project is, however, consistent with the development standards (lot coverage and floor area ratio) found in the Development Code. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 50% and the maximum Floor Area Ratio 50%. The project site is 35.31 acres (1,538,118.6 square feet). The project proposes a Lot Coverage of 15.7% (242,975 square feet) and a Floor Area Ratio of 36% (565,260 square feet). If the hospital project was not proposed, the maximum lot coverage of a commercial or other office project on the project site would be 769,059 square feet (50%). The maximum floor area ratio for the project site would also be 769,059 square feet (50%). The proposed project is well below the maximum permitted lot coverage and floor area ratio permitted in the Professional Office zone. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and pOlicies within the General Plan. The proposed project is a hospital facility, which will house elderly, ill and others defined as sensitive receptors. The proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration and could potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Since the proposed - project is a hospital facility, it will attract people of age and other ill persons, which may be sensitive to odors, . 8 . . . dust and/or other pollutants. The exceedance of thresholds of significance for short-term and long-term air quality impacts due to construction and operation of the proposed project will be evaluated in a Focused EIR that will be prepared for this project. The following Conditions of Approval andJor Mitigation Measures are recommended to be incorporated into the EIR and placed on the following entitlements as a part of the proposed project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map): a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommended mitigation measures set forth in the Air Quality Study prepared by Regulation Compliance Incorporated, dated December 16, 2004. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written proof of the satisfaction of each of the below mitigation measures to the Planning Department. b. The applicant shall properly maintain all waste related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. c. All hazardous materials, bio-hazardous waste, medical service waste and general wastes shall be discarded in compliance with county, state and/or federal regulations. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hospital facility, the Applicant shall submit an approved hazardous waste storage and removal plan from the State of California andJor Riverside County Health Department to the City of Temecula Planning Department. d. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. e. The applicant shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets (Dartolo Road, De Portola Road, and Highway 79 South), to promote alternative transportation. f. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Caltrans for a final location, design and type of stage area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. g. The applicant shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include, but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, offering flex hours andJor flex schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices and hospital. h. The applicant shall incorporate energy efficiency standards as defined by Title 24 into the project. The applicant shall comply with the latest Title 24 standards. i. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought- resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust and erosion to be conducted at the Applicant's sole expense. 9 j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the Applicant shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative c1ean- _ fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and _ deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably possible. k. Electrical powered equipmt;!nt should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. I. During construction and all grading phases, the project site shall be watered down, to prevent fugitive dust and erosion, in the morning before grading andJor before construction begins and in the evening once construction andJor grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during construction andJor grading activities to reduce dust. The applicant shall comply with Rule 403, Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as well as industry accepted best management practices (BMP's). A note with the above information shall be provided on all grading and construction plans and shall be subject to periodic monitoring by City personnel. m. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on-site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Engineer reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the project construction. n. All trucks exporting andJor importing fill toJfrom the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off-site (to andJor from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be _ sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, _ including the wheels shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduceJeliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. o. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements. p. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant shall post signs on-site limiting construction related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. q. The Applicant shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel (preferably the southeast corner of the project site). r. In addition to the foregoing, all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials andJor roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, but no less than 3 times per day, not including morning and evening watering. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Daily watering shall include complete coverage of the site. City personnel shall monitor on-site conditions and may from time to time, require additional treatment by the Applicant, at its sole cost. s. Graded andJor excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by the APPlicant. at least weekly to ensure continued dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods such as water and roll compaction and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to 10 . portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered to establish and maintain grass growth, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. City staff shall be advised of the election of treatment made by the Applicant. t. During the course of the project grading and construction, the Applicant shall sweep adjacent streets and roads so as to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading andJor construction. u. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the Applicant shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. v. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. w. The area disturbed by clearing, grading earth moving, or excavation operations shall be no greater than is necessary for project development so as to prevent excessive or unnecessary amounts of dust. . x. All the necessary above control techniques shall be clearly indicated on the project grading and construction plans. Compliance with these measures shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? . Issues and Su run Information Sources Potentially Significant 1m act Potentially SignifICant Unless less Than Mitigation Significant Inco rated 1m act No 1m ct 11 a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in X local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California X Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, X coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurserv sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? e Comments: . 4. a. b. c. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: A habitat assessment study was prepared for the project site (Habitat Assessment, Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc., September 14, 2004). The study identified a man made flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site, which contains riparian vegetation such as willows and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes have also been identified within the manmade channel. The habitat within the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The project will be required, as a condition of approval, to construct a vehicular access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may require Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and potentially clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The presence of the flood channel may also require the approval of Riverside County Flood Control. The study (Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc. September 2004) concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed alteration, placement of fill into the channel and the encroachment into jurisdictional areas. However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge. In addition, if activity within the channel (or for preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to occur between April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols shall be provided to determine the presenceJabsence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found, the construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project with Mitigation Measures. 4. e.: No Impact: The project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery sites. _ The project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan, including . area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site has been 12 grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord. 8.16). There are some grasses on the project site, however they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the . site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the project site. 4. f.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP. The project site is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic plants as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the Burrowing Owl. The study prepared by Amec (September 14, 2004) concluded that the project site contains grasslands, which is potential habitat suitable for Burrowing Owls. The study recommended future studies prior to issuance of grading permits. The following Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project and enforceable pursuant to the respective entitlement to which each is conditioned: a. The Applicant shall submit documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the city Engineer, indicating the type of permits required to construct the vehicular bridge across the flood channel on the eastern portion of the project site. b. The applicant shall submit written verification from the U.S. Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determining if any further biological studies or clearances are required. c. Focused surveys for Burrowing Owls are required within one month of any ground disturbing activities. If Burrowing Owls occupy the site, the City of Temecula shall be notified and passive or active relocation of the Owls is required fOllowing state and federal protocols. d. The applicant shall construct a bridge using supports outside the channel. . e. A qualified biologist is required to be on-site during all pre-construction site preparation of the bridge across the channel. f. In the event any site preparation for the bridge takes place from April 15 through July 15, the applicant shall submit focused studies following standard protocol for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found on-site, the construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. g. In the event any further conditions, mitigation measures or other regulatory requirement is imposed by any other agency with jurisdiction over the project, the City may require further environmental review. . 13 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunnortinn Infonnation Sources Imnact Inco~orated Impact Imnact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeolooical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or uniaue aeolooic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? e Comments: 5. a.: No Impact: A Phase I survey (Historical/archaeological resource survey report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004) has been prepared for the proposed project. The survey did not identify any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 on the project site. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 5. b and c.: Less than Significant: The phase I survey did not identify the project site as a potential site for historical resources, including human remains. The archaeology survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact that the surrounding area is known to contain historical and archaeological resources; the project site is not known to include any sensitive resources. However, given the known sensitive resources discovered within close proximity of the project site, conditions of approval are required. The project site is also a potential site A for paleontological resources and conditions of approval are required. . 5. d.: No Impact: The survey did not recognize the project site as a high potential for human remains. The project site was identified as an agricultural area. While there was significant historical activity around the project site, the project site itself is not anticipated to contain human remains. The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project and shall be imposed as enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the project: a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. b. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent authorized by law. c. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities at the applicant's sole cost. d. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided and preserved consistent with this condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in the Mitigation Measure a above. e. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the Historical/Archaeological Resource . Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004 and September 16, 2004 respectively, except as modified by these mitigation measures. 14 . I. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological and Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) shall each have the authority to temporarily halt andJor divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. ii. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates and vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they can be identified and permanently preserved. iii. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires alternative treatment. iv. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. v. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and the city of Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any Pleistocene-age or older sedimentsJresources are discovered, a program shall be prepared with recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the resources unearthed. . . 15 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless less Than Issues and Sunnortinn Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Imnact lnco~rated Impact lmnact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death X involvino: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based X on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geolonv Snecial Publication 42. ii. Stronq seismic qround shakin"? X iii. Seismic-related qround failure, includinq liquefaction? X iv. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, X and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreadinq, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial X risks to life or propertv? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? e e Comments: 6. a. i-iv and c:Less Than Significant Jmpact: A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the proposed project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA, PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004). The proposed project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The proposed project will not rupture a known fault since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the project site. The Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The site, in its current condition includes subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of structural loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent a negligible corrosive environment with respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive environment with respect to buried metals. The project site has a moderate risk for liquefaction andJor seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor slabs should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement due to soil liquefaction and seismically induced consolidation of soil above the groundwater. The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant and will be established as enforceable conditions on the entitlements: a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Geotechnical Exploration, e prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 and as stated below without deviation. 16 i. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical. . ii. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly compacted fill. The depth of overexcavation should extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on- grade and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed. The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a heavy vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D157) until design finish grades are reached. This earthwork should extend at least four feet beyond building limits, wherever practical. iii. The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill materials, including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials, have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an expansion index of less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill. During the course of grading operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches) may be generated. These materials should not be placed within the compacted fill. iv. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacred-engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior to sloping. . v. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical engineer with consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design. vi. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be removedJscarified; moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on Test Method 01557. The upper 12-inch densification should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base material and not during the initial grading operation. vii. As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial deposits underlie the site. As such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can generally be achieved with conventional earthmoving equipment. viii. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects (Appendix E), and City of Temecula standards. 6. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including National . Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion control and best management practices (BMP's). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of 17 Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6. d.: No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the project is not e located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies the soils on the project site as "very low expansion potential" as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBe) Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004. 6. e.: No Impact: The project site will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available and approvals from the Department of Environmental Health andJor Eastern Municipal Water District for solid wastes and waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The project will be required to connect to the public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and waste treatment facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility. . e 18 . 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and SUDoortino Information Sources Imoact Incoroorated Imoact Imoact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workina in the proiect area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X workinq in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? . Comments: 7. a. b. c.: Less than Significant: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project consists of medical uses and will include the storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials. The proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions (except those discussed in the Air Quality study dated, September 14, 2004), materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit to staff an approved hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . 7. d.: No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 19 7. e.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive land Use Plan (ClUP). There are no other Airports located near the project. e 7. f.: No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project does include a private helipad, which will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of patients to other facilities. As a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and safe. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project, which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local treatment for the injured, especially in the event of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. The following Mitigation Measures shall be required as part of the proposed project: a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) that verifies that the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, andJor federal regulations. e . 20 . 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially SignifICant Unless Less Than SignifICant Mitigation SignifICant No Issues and SUDoortina Information Sources lmoact Incomorated Imoact Imoad a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate X of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which oermits have been Qranted\? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in f100dinQ on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantiallv demade water Qualitv? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would imoede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam? i. Inundation bv seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X . Comments: 8. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements because the proposed project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards. An Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required if the project proposes the inclusion of discharge or dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged materials within "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicant is required to consult with the Department of the Army to determine the appropriate permits required for the construction of an access road/bridge overJacross the flood control channel located the eastern portion of the site. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . 21 8. b.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project is required to comply with local A development standards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and . ground water recharge. There is an existing water well, owned and operated by Rancho California Water District (RCWD), adjacent to the project site to the northeast. The City has instructed the applicant to contact the RCWD and request that a Water Supply Assessment be prepared for this project. RCWD has not provided any comments of immediate concern at this time. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. c.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project will include an on-site drainage plan; however it will not alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project site includes a flood channel, operated and maintained by Riverside County Flood Control. Riverside County Flood Control has been notified of the proposed project and has not submitted a letter of concern at this time. The City of T emecula Public Works Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on- site drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project e 8. e.,f.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project will add a significant amount of irnpermeable surface area on the project site. As a result, there will be an increased level of runoff during a rain event. The Hydrology and Drainage Analysis for this project indicates that the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storrn water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. The project will be conditioned to implement Best Management Practices to reduce potential impacts caused by runoff and will be required to implement mitigation measures that are proposed by responsible and trustee agencies. The City recommends that a Water Quality Management Plan be prepared for this project and that impacts related to drainage and potential for polluted runoff be evaluated in a Focused EIR that will be prepared for this project. 8. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. h. i.: No Impact: The proposed project was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan.. Recent improvements to Temecula Creek have resulted in a new 100-year and 500-year flood plain boundary delineation. Temecula Creek, which is the primary drainage course in the immediate area, was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The dredging of Temecula Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements and dredging was completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been issued (FIRM, Community-Panel Number 060742-0010 B, revised November A 20,1996). The project site is now identified within the 500-year flood area. . 2Z The proposed project site was is located within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD owns the Vail Lake Dam and has submitted to the City _ a Dam Inundation report, which includes language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek_ An . additional study obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996 further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. The FEMA study shows that the dredging of Temecula Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in the event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of Vail Lake Dam. The proposed project will place structures within a 500-year flood hazard area, as identified in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996). The Applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA standards. The proposed project is not anticipated to impede or redirect flood flows. As a condition of approval a drainage plan is required; this plan will address flow and drainage facilities and provide comments andJor recommendation concerning the failure. of the Vail Lake Dam. While the current City of Temecula Final EIR identifies the project site as being within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation Area, the recent improvements to Temecula Creek have mitigated this potential impact. A revised Dam Inundation Area for the Vail lake Dam is anticipated to remove the project site from the Dam Inundation Area. A letter dated January 29, 1996 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted floodplain boundaries. The letter and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100-year discharge capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500-year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and letter also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 100-year flood energy grade lines and 100-year flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail Lake Dam is a 51,000 acre feet facility. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Vail Lake is a 51,000 acre-feet facility. The dam is a concrete arch dam with gravity abutment sections. The dam is 4.5 feet thick at the top and 15 feet thick at the lowest point of the foundation. The top of the dam is a parapet wall at elevation of _ 1,482.5 feet. The dam is located to the south east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in partial . flooding of the Temecula creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for structure loss, however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant loss of structures or loss of life, injury or death on the project site. The channelization of the Temecula Creek from Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 4,200 feet downstream of Margarita Road and the construction of additional bridges at both Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita Road have allowed the delineation of the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) to be revised as a result of the updated topographic information along Temecula Creek. This updated information affects the flood plain boundaries and the dam inundation area. With the updated improvements and channelization of Temecula Creek, it is determined that the maximum capacity of Temecula Creek has the capability to accommodate the flow of Vail lake Dam in the event of a dam failure. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. j.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line which would be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . 23 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially PotentiaHy Significant Unless less Than Issues and Sunnnrtinn Infannation Sources SignifICant Mitigation Significant No Imnact Inco"':""rated 'moact Imoact a. Phvsicallv divide an established communitY? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific X plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X e Comments: 9. a. c.: No Impact: The proposed project will not divide an established community because the proposed use is compatible and permitted under the current zoning designation and is consistent with the surrounding commercial uses. The proposed project is currently zoned Professional Office (PO) and will not divide an .established community or conflict with the applicable land use plan. The long term vision of the project is planned for office uses, which allows for hospitals and professional offices, to provide services to the community. The project is not subject to, or located within a criteria cell for the adopted habitat conservation plan (MSHCP) or a natural community conservation plan. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) does not identify the project site as a critical site subject to additional studies or review. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, which would allow medical and office facilities to exceed the 2 story height limit. Medical and office facilities would be allowed up to six (6) stories if the General Plan Amendment is approved. . 9. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site currently maintains two separate zoning designations. There are three lots that abut De Portola Road, which are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The remainder of the project site is zoned Professional Office (PO). The zone change will change the entire project site, including the three lots currently zoned as PDO-8, to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed project is not consistent with the existing General Plan because the project site is within the Specific Plan Overlay which restricts height on the subject property to one or two stories. A General Plan Amendment has been proposed to remove the Specific Plan Overlay on the property to allow for the proposed height increase. All the permitted uses within the current zoning designation (PO) will still be permitted in PDO-X; the primary change that would take place as a result of the PDO is the height standard. A maximum of 30% of the total roof area of hospital facilities are permitted to a maximum height of 115 feet. Roof area is defined within the PDO as the portion of the roof above occupied conditional spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall. The project is located along a state highway (Highway 79 South) and there are not any public views that will be impacted as a result of the project. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment will bring the project into compliance with land use policies and development criteria. Compatibility issues will be analyzed in a Focused EIR for this project. . Z4 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues and Su crt!n lnfonnation Sources Potentially Significant 1m act Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation lnco rated less Than SignifICant 1m ct No 1m act b. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local eneral lan, s ecific Ian or other land use Ian? x a. x Comments: 10. a.-b.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are considered of value to the region and/or the state. The proposed project will not result in the loss of a locally- important mineral resource because the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. e . 25 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless less Than SignifICant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunoorlin'" Information Sources Imnact Inco~rated Imoact Imooct a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan X or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other aqencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X aroundborne vibration or oroundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X proiect? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the proiect? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the X proiect area to excessive noise levels? . Comments: e 11. a.-c..Potentially Significant Impact: The project site is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road. There are commercial and office uses between the project site and Margarita Road, and residences immediately to the north and across De Portola Road. The state highway forms a separation barrier between the project site and the residences to the south. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and codified Ordinance 04-11, which allows helipad facilities in Professional Office Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. The Ordinance states the following: Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures from structure to structure of an existing or designated public or private primary, secondary or high school. Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed public park (measured property line to property line). Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures structure to structure) of an existing or future assembly facility having 500 persons or more seating capacity. Private heliports associates with hospitals shall be exempt from this requirement. The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall not be located within any required yard area and in no circumstance shall it be located within (10) feet from all property lines. In addition, a minimum one-hundred (100) foot setback shall be achieved from adjacent residentially properties. Ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by rotation of the rotor . blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction free. 26 . The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic or inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter. Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from the adjacent residences. The nearest school is Sparkman Elementary (existing) and Rancho Community Church (under construction). Rancho Community Church is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. Sparkmen Elementary is approximately 1,250 feet from the hospital structure. The nearest park is Paloma Del Sol Park, which is approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. The nearest assembly facility to the project site is Rancho Community Church, which, as stated above is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. The helipad is not located within a yard area and the nearest residentially zoned parcel is approximately 460 feet away from the helipad. Conditions of Approval will be in place to ensure the materials and the surrounding lighting and landscaping of the helipad is consistent with Ordinance 04-11. The proposed project consists of a hospital, medical offices, a cancer center and a fitness center totaling approximately 565,260 square feet. The hospital includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories respectively, the medical office buildings are 3 and 4 stories each, the cancer center and the fitness center are both single story. The proposed project also includes a helipad on the northeast portion of the site. The General Plan allows a maximum noise level in residential areas not to exceed 65 decibels for exterior areas and 45 decibels for interior areas. A maximum noise level shall not exceed 70 decibels for internal commercial and office areas. The City of Temecula General Plan and EIR have forecasted noise levels for this area to be up to 74 CNEL at build-out measured 100 feet from Highway 79 South. The setback of the nearest proposed structure is a medical office building setback 192 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 South. The nearest point of the hospital is setback 310 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 South. The project site is designed to include berming and landscaping along the frontage (Highway 79 South), which . will buffer some of the noise. The noise analysis (Regulation Compliance Inc., December 2, 2004) states that the construction of the hospital, office buildings, cancer center and fitness center shall be required to install double-paned windows per title 24 requirements. Said noise analysis also states that structures, including residences with double paned windows will mitigate the majority of potentially significant noise impacts. Compliance with title 24 will mitigate the noise impacts associated with the day to day operation portion of the project. There will be temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during construction activities and during peak hour traffic periods. This will be temporary in nature and are associated with typical commercial development. Hours of operation for construction activities, consistent with the City's noise element in the General Plan will be enforced. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan in 2005 when they approved Resolution 05-43 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan". The General Plan EIR included a statement of overriding considerations, which recognized significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Those impacts related to air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. The information is contained within the current General Plan which was adopted in 2005. The City of Temecula has been consistent with land-use decisions in relation to the current General Plan and therefore the information is deemed reliable. The Mitigation Measures in this initial study shall be required upon the adoption of this initial study and the approval of the proposed project as conditions of approval. All Mitigation Measures shall be binding requirements of the project approval. There is a potential that the proposed use will have an influence on vehicular circulation patterns and that the potential exists for additional vehicular traffic to be experienced in the residential areas north of the project site. This potential for increased noise on residential streets will be addressed in a Focused EIR prepared for the project. . Z7 11.d:Potentially Significant Impact: The General Plan noise element identifies the project site as an area that will exceed the maximum CNEL permitted at build-out. A maximum noise level of 65 CNEL is permitted for hospitals and residential uses and a maximum noise level of 70 for commercial and offices uses. The- primary source of permanent noise will be generated from the Highway. The proposed project is required to ,., construct berming with landscaping along the frontage of Highway 79 South to reduce the noise impacts on- site and onto the adjacent residential areas. Additional sources of noise are expected from generators and equipment within the mechanical yard. However the mechanical yard is not located near a residence and includes sound walls that mitigate the noise levels at the property to a less than significant level at adjacent property lines (Regulation Compliance, Inc., September 14, 2004). Temporary noise levels above the maximum permitted decibels can be expected during construction activities. The following conditions of approval will be required as a part of the proposed projects entitlements as stated in the Noise study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004) and the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR: a. All construction equipment fixed andJor mobile, including, but not limited to water trucks, cranes, bull dozers, scrapers, and trucks shall be maintained and operated properly, including maintained mufflers. The Applicant andJor contractor shall provide verification of maintenance records prior to issuance of grading permit. b. During all grading and construction activities, the Applicant shall place and maintain a continuous barrier of 6 foot high (or a height as determined acceptable by the Planning Director) sound blankets along both the projects northern property lines and along all the residential properties abutting the project site. c. All stationary construction and permanent operational equipment shall be placed in a location such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors, subject to the approval of the Planning Director (Prior to issuance of grading permit and on-going). . d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from noise sensitive receptors, including residences, as practical, SUbject to the approval of the Planning Director. e. Mechanical equipment including, but not limited to heaters, air-conditioners, air handling units, ventilators, trash compactors, generators, and loading bays shall be screened andJor muffled. In addition, the Applicant shall provide buffers, including enhanced landscaping, berming, andlor structures such as walls for acoustical shielding. f. Emergency generators shall only be used in the event of an emergency power outage andJor for service and maintenance. g. Loading docks shall be enclosed on three sides, include a roof or cover, and face away from residential parcels. Truck arrival and departure hours for loading and unloading shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM. h. Sirens from emergency vehicles shall be shut off when within Y. mile of the hospital site unless required to allow for emergency access. i. The helicopter flight path shall be limited to commercial areas to the greatest extent possible unless required in emergency situations or if there are no other safe paths of travel. j. The Applicant shall comply with Section 21661.5 of the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation Administration. The applicant shall submit written correspondence from the appropriate agencies detailing requirements and approvals from the appropriate agencies prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the helipad. . 28 . . . k. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or FederalJState Government Holidays 11. e.-f.:Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed is not located in an Airport Land Use Plan area and there is not an airport, public or private within 2 miles of the proposed project. However, the project proposes to construct a helipad used for transporting patients to trauma centers at other locations. There is no method available to quantify the number of helicopter trips related to the hospital operations as a result of trauma. Noise impacts on neighboring residents and equestrian uses should be analyzed in a Focused EIR prepared for the project to determine the effects of helicopter noise on the surrounding area. . 29 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunnnrtinn tnfonnation Sources Imoact IncorOOrated Imnact lmnact a. Induce substantial population growth in an. area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure \? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of renlacement housino elsewhere? e Comments: 12. a.: Less Than Significant Jmpact: The proposed project is a regional facility, which will add additional medical services to the region. As a result the proposed project could potentially cause additional growth in the surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth (residential and commercial) since the mid 1980's without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding community is nearly built-out with residential dwellings. The proposed project therefore, is not anticipated to induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has already occurred over the last 10-20 years. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 12. b.-c.: No Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project site includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center; residential . uses are not proposed. The project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or removeJreplace existing housing. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. . 30 . 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suooortina Information Sources Imoact IncorDorated lmoact Imoact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which X could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police nrotection? X Schools? X Parks? X Otheroublic facilities? X Comments: 13. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will provide additional public services available to the community and general public. The project will also provide better emergency medical response and allow for better transport of medical emergencies. . The project will contribute fair share contributions through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provide public facilities and infrastructure. The project will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the pUblic utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would result in less than significant irnpacts as a result of the project. The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual analysis concerning sewer flows form the hospital and the total flow is estimated to be approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge volume, the hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity assuming that all hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service the Applicant is responsible for payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee. Estimated connection fees at this time are approximately $1,540,000 assuming the current connection fees structure of $3,843 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU i.e. 235 gallons per day). The estimated water supply development fee is approximately $120,000. . 31 14. RECREATION. Potentially Potentially Significant Unless less Than SignifICant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunnortinn Information Sources Imnact Incol1l(Jrated Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? e Comments: 14. a.: No Impact: The project is a hospital and medical office project in a professional office zone. The project will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. b.: No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational aspect to the project. Furthermore, the project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. e e 32 . 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentially -'W'- Potentially Significant Unless LessThan ,~ ~:' SignifICant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sunl'V'lrtinnlhfortnation Sources Imnact lhoo";'oiated Imoact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or conaestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X manaoement aoencv for desionated roads or hiohways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.a., farm eauioment)? e. Result in inadequate emeraencvaccess? X f. Result in inadequate oarkina caoacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, X bicvcle racks)? . Comments: 15. a.-c: Potentially Significant Impact: A traffic analysis and supplemental trip generation information have been prepared for the proposed project; (Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Medical Center, Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004; letter from David E. Prusha to Bill Hughes, November 23, 2004). The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The proposed project consists of approximately 320 bed hospital facility, 407,260 square feet of hospital floor area, 140,000 square feet of medical office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 565,560 square feet. The project will generally be constructed in two phases and will generate a total of 11 ,458 vehicle trips per day with 865 vehicle trips during the A.M. peak hour and 929 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project evaluated all the intersections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road and De Portola Road. Phase one includes approximately 150 beds for the hospital and 80,000 square feet of medical office space. Phase one is anticipated to generate approximately 6,290 trips per day with 474 vehicle trips during the peak A.M. hour and 629 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the total trips were assigned to Highway 79 South and 22% were assigned to De Portola Road. As part of the TIA, 17 other cumulative projects in the vicinity of Highway 79 South were included in the study. The cumulative impacts of all these projects when added to the Hospital project will result in a LOS of F in several intersections of the study area as identified in the TIA. The TIA has identified several roadway and intersection improvements, which when implemented could result in a LOS of D or better in the study area intersection. lt is important to note that the TIA did not factor in a Dartolo Road connection, which could reduce the impacts to each road and intersection. . The following Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project: 33 Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase I: e 1. Modify the proposed traffic signal at the easterly project access (Country Glen) from a three way signal to a four way signal to accommodate access to the project from Highway 79 South. 2. Install sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of the project on Highway 79 South. 3. Improve the intersection of Highway 79 South at Margarita Road to provide an additional eastbound to north bound left-turn pocket (dual left) if this work has not already been completed. 4. Connect an access connection from the project site to De Portola Road. 5. Pay applicable Development Impact Fees (OIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). 6. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study area based on the phase I impacts of the project as identified in the TIA. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase II: 1. Connect Dartolo Road from the project site to Margarita Road. 2. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study area based upon the phase II impacts of the project as identified in the TIA. 3. Pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (OIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). 4. It should be noted that if the project's OIF and TUMF fees exceed the fair share impact fees of the project, the project will not be responsible for payment of any additional fair share fees for mitigation to off-site intersections, which are affected by the other 17 cumulative projects. The City of Temecula City Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the mitigation measures mentioned above upon final review of the final traffic analysis, subject to and as limited by the substitution requirements of the state CEQA Guidelines. Even with proposed mitigation, Level of Service on Highway 79 South and Margarita Road will be operating at a LOS of 0 or worse during peak periods as a result of the construction of this project. An analysis of cumulative impacts that considers recently approved projects and projects currently being processed along the Highway 79 South corridor must be analyzed in a Focused EIR. . 15. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not include the extension, construction or modification of any traffic patterns that would create sharp curves, dangerous intersections or establish incompatible uses that create a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is required to improve intersections and pay fees, however the improvements would not create unsafe public intersections, curves or traffic patterns. 15. e.: No Impact: The proposed project, as conditioned, includes four access points. The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has been provided. In addition, on-site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles. 15. f.: No Impact: The proposed project requires a total of 663 parking spaces. A total of 1,278 parking spaces are provided. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 15. g.: No Impact: The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) has submitted a letter requesting a bus stop facility. The applicant shall comply with the standards and written request as set forth by the RTA. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . 34 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. Issues and $u rtin Information Sources Potentially Significant 1m d: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Inco rated No 1m act Less Than Significant 1m act Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the a licable Re ional Water Quali Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ex anded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ro.ect's solid waste dis osal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and re ulations related to solid waste? x x x x x x x Comments: 16. a. b. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. The Applicant is required to consult with the sewer purveyor, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to determine what, if any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit a letter from EMWD indicating that current facilities are in place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to provide service to the proposed project. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because the wastewater and treatment systems are already designed to handle this quantity of wastewater. 16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The project may require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the project site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities will be required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control has reviewed the proposed plan and has not submitted any formal comments of concern in regards to District Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. d.: No Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water . entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has provided ''water available" letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed project, provided the 35 applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. There is a domestic well near that project site, owned by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). RCWD have been notified of the project; RCWD has not notified the City of any significant issues or concerns for the proposed project. The proposed project is also _ consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regard to permitted uses and policies. ., Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. f. g.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. e . 36 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: a. b. c. Issues and Su ortin Information Sources Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histo or rehisto ? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current ro.ects, and the effects of robable future ro.ects? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directl or indirectl ? Comments: Potentially Significant 1m act Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Inco rated No 1m act Less Than Significant 1m act x x x . 17. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project because proposed Mitigation Measures are expected to reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant. The developer will be required to obtain all applicable State and Federal Permits including, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and clearance from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A traffic analysis has been completed and was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify and require traffic calming devices and mitigation measures to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan. 17. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The individual effects from the project are primarily less than significant with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The air quality impacts have been identified as potentially significant impacts. As discussed in the Air Quality section, the project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is designated "extreme" non- attainment area for ozone. The City Council of the City of Temecula has adopted Resolution 05-43, which includes a statement of overriding consideration for air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. Resolution 05-43 identifies these areas that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the build-out of the General Plan. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with the standards required by the General Plan and Development Code, and accordingly the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17. c.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures are required in order to reduce impact to a less than significant level. . 37 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, - or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or · negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier anal ses used. Identi earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the. ro.ect. Earlier Analysis: The proposed project was reviewed under the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan adopted by City Council on November 9, 1993. Sections 3.0, 4.1,4.2,4.4,4.5,4.6, 4.7,4.10,4.11,4.12,4.14,4.17, and 6.0 of the Final EIR for the General Plan, together with the identified technical documents prepared by the Applicant, were relied upon to analyze the proposed project. As a result of the above mentioned sections and technical studies, the conclusion found within this initial study were made. The information relied upon as described above is available at the City of Temecula for review and inspection. e . 38 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. . 12. 13. SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, November 4, 2004 Trip Generation for Spring Valley Hospital, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., November 15, 2004 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment, AMEC, Inc., September 14, 2004 Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Temecula Hospital, PSI Inc., May 14, 2004. Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center, Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC Company), November 2004. Paleontological Resource Assessment Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech., September 16, 2004. . Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004. Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 20, 1996. Letter to the Honorable Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson, Riverside County Board of Supervisors from John w. Eldridge, Jr. Acting Director of Mitigation Division of Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX, dated January 25, 1996 14. Inundation Study for Vail Dam, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc., July 1975. 15. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, Regulation Compliance Incorporated, Inc., December 16, 2004 16. City of Temecula Resolution 93-90, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan for the City of Temecula, Adopted November 5, 1993. 17. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH # 2003061041), March 2005. 18. City of Temecula Resolution 05-43, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan," Adopted April 12, 2005. . 39 e This page is intentionally left blank. . e 40 e . . aTA~~ r.AIIs:nAN!A NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MAlL, l\OOU S84 SACfLIM!HTO. CI\ 95814 (816) ess-.toae . (~e)657-6S90-F.. : AI'I'VItrI9clh~~ Gm..tmM Allllust 15, 2005 . Mr. EI'lefY J.Papp CIly ofTemecula . 43200 1luJJines8 P;lrk Orive T <!fJl8Q,JJa, CA ll2Si9o ReI: 'rernecula Regional Hll$pital SCHtI2005031011 Dear Mr. Papp: Thank you for the cpporfunll)' to comment on 1h4o above-rner1llOlled docUmel'lt. :The CommIs$lOl1 was IIlle to peIfoIm II record lMIatCh 0' Its ~ lands File for the pro]ed .... which;faIled to IIKfICllle It1e prn enoe of NlIlIVe AmerIcan CIIllUtaIle$OUrces in the immediat8 pmjed -. The ~ce r:4 $flecifie Site lnfonnauon In thll'Sacnld Landa File does not fncIicalll the l!lb$ence of CUltuial resoul'Cll$ In any project II'lla Other $Ourr;es of oulhlrall'esOuroes should al&o be o:ontacIed for inforination regarding knOwn and reoorcfeiIaltes. . Early _b8Ilon with lIibea In ~ area '-the bMtWay 10 avoid o.mantic:ipated diSCOllllriell once a ProjeClls unctelWliy. Enclosed is a list of Native Amerleans Ind!vidulllttorgantzalkln$ f/Jal may have knowledge of cullul$! tesou,cea in 1Ile pnljectarea TI'le Commil;s/oll rnaIuos no ~ of" singl9 IncflViduill or group over enOll'ler. p~ COI1\ac1 elllhoae I~ if they cannot sulJpIy YOII with SDtdfic information; they may ~ lIbIe to reeommend olhn with *I*iIic knclwIed9$. BY COnf<lcdnQ all those I~. your ~n~tion will be better abla to ~ to cfaims otfa~ure to coneutt with IIKl appropnwe b'i~ or gmup. If you have not receiVed a Jespol'lte wllhin two wook8'lfn1e, we recommend \hat you follow-up witn a lelephone call to make IMll that the InlorrnatioIl was ~ . Lack of slirl\lce evid~ of arche%glcal J'8S()IlIce1; dotfl not PIllCIude!he lllCIsfenge of ~icall'lltOuiccs. I """ aaendes should coMider lIII<lidancA .... dl!llned In llectibn 15370 0( the CECA Guidelines. ~hen s"'nificant tultural resources lX>U~ be"- bY a ~. PI'ovision"houId also be included for ~identally di~ BtCIleOlqgil:al rwources (luring llDI'lSllu~ per California ~h.".,...1laI Quality Act (CEQA), P\lbllc Re.ouIQl8 Code 615064.5 (1). Hellllh and .ty Code &7060.5; *"CI PuIlIIC:Resowws C<1de U5097.98 mendate the ~ to be lilIIowedin l\1e event Of an accicIenlaI dlsclOvery or 8IlY human remaIne In a JoeetlOn 0111., than II dedicated cemetery and JhouId be Included In all enmnmenml documents. If you have any qOO5tlOlll, ple88e contact me _ (91/l) eS3- 6251. Sincerely, ~ Card Gaubatz Program Analyst Co: Slale Clearin!ll1<luse " I.lQUve AmerIcan Colltacta Alvers/(fe County August 15, 2005 '<1100: e Samuel H. Dunlap P.O. Sox 1391 Temeeula , CA 92~3 (909) 262-9351 (Cell) (909) 693.9198 FAX Gabrielino CaIIulIla Lulseno Pauma & YUlma , Christobal C. Devers. Chairperson P.O. Sox 369 "Luiseno Pauma Valley , CA 92061 ~mif~@Yahoo.com (700) 742-3422 Fax " WrIliePink 626 I=' Old Second St , ' San Jacinto lJ2583 , CA (951) 936-1216 Luiseno P8Uma & Yuima , Sennae CaJac, CtllluraJ Re!>Ource Coordinator P.O. Sox 369 . Luiseno Paums VllUey , CA. 9206il kvmberl80Loelers@YahOO.CO/7l (160) 8C2~1811 . (160) 742-3422 Fax ' Cupa Cultural Center (Pale Band) Shasta Gaughen, AssIstant DIrector 3500Ii Pala-T~Ad.PM8 &oj.. 445 Lulseno para , CA 920$9 C~P1I@Palatp~.com (7W) 7if2..1 """ Pauma & YU/ma ATTN: ePA Coot'dlnafor P.O. Sox 369 Luiseno PaUMa Valley , CA 9206' kwnb9rll..Detem@yahoo.com (760) 7;J2;128if, . (760) 742-3422 Fax . La Jolla Band of Mlselon IMlans ATTN: Rob Roy, Environmental Olrector Z!OOo Highway 76 . LuiSeno Pauma Valley. CA 920$1 !!iol!,a.shenv@aoI.COm 8nd (760) 742:-3'711172 . (160) 742-1701 Fax ' Pechanga Band of MISS/on Jndlens Paul Macano, Cultural ResOurce Center P.O. Sox 2183 lu/seno TemElCUla , CA 92593 (951) 308-9295 . (951) 506-9491 Hvc Pala Band of Mlssioo Ind~ Robert SmIth, Chairperson P.O. Box 50 " P8Ja . CA 92059 (760) 742-a784 ' (760) 7<12-1411 Fax Luiseno Copeno Pechanga Bend of Missionilldians Malt Macarro, Chairperson P.O. Sox 2183 . lui$eno Temeeula . CA 92593 (951) 308-9295 ' (951) 5~1 Fax -Iat r._ anly.. or lhe Qie Of 11I1$ doe"",.... ~Oflh'" lIII_not..........,_ af~_1oInt,r as "'"'-"'tlootlon?\lSO.s &f ""'~"1Id -""Co>do, houan!llltr.e4 af~DuIlIki__ Cade_.....an _.M alltIe ~""1Io __ ear.. : IlIlollot.._onlV_--,.,....nIliotrna__NIlIIIoe~..llIl_Io___ IL .-otlerlloo_ r-.....1IeilIaI'I8l HaopH,i~ 8CHf i!lIll6'iI31Df7. "'''-CDvnly. . e . "aUve Americlln Contalcts RiversIde County August 15,2005 Rincon Band of MISsion IOctlans Cult1Jre Committee P.O. Box 68 L.uisenO Valley center . CA 92~ COund) IClMncontrfbe.org (760 749-1061 (760) 749-8901 Fax San Luls Rey Band of Mis$ion Indians Henry Contreras, Most Uk~1y Descendant 1763 Chapulln Lane .. luisefl(l Fatlbrook , CA 9~ (760) 728-6722 - Home . (760) 207-3618 . Cell . .RinCon Band of MissIon llIdltlfls John Currier, ChairpersoO P.O. Box 68 Lulseno Valley Center . CA 92082 councIl@rlnconlribe.org . (760) 749-1061 (760) 749-8901 Fax San L.uls Rey Band of Mlsliion Indians Russell Ramo. Chairman . 12064 Old Pomerado Road L.uiseno Poway , CA 92064 (858) 748-1586 ' Rincon Band of MIssion Irldians Rob Shaffer. Tribal Administrator P.O. Box 68 ,Lulseno VaDey Centsr . CA 920$2 councll@r1nconlribe.org . . (760) 749-1051 · (760) 749-8901 Fax . San l.lIis Rey Band of Mission Indians Carmen Mojado. CO-Chalr . 1889 Sunset Dr. . Luiseno Vbta , CA 92081 RinCon Band of Mission Indians Krislle Orosco, Environmelrtal Coordinator P.O. Box 68 : Lulseno . Valley CehIer ,CA 92082 COlincil@rlnoontrlbe.org . (7tiO) 149-1051 (760) 749-8901 Fax San I.lIls Rey Band of Mission Indians Mark Mojado, Cultural ResOurces P.O. Box 1 . !.ulseno Pala . CA 92059 Cupeno (760) 742-4468 . (760) 586-4858 (cell) Rincon Band of Mission Indians Rulh Calac, Presl(lent. Ricen Heritage Col'm1lssion P.O. Box 68 . Lulseno Valley center . CA 920&2. ~l@rIncontnbe.org . (760) 749-1051 (760) 749-8901 Fax SobOba Band of MisSion I~ians Robert J. Salgado, Sr., Chairperson P.O. Box 487 Lulseno San Jacinto . CA 92581 luisen3asoboba-nsn.gOv (951) 276$ F~: (951) 6544198 TNOlJot"__"OItIlO~OI__ ,_.L _IL _ot_lbit_ -.......__ OI'*"""'Y ~...__1n_705Il.SOIIho___ llaI""~__o04"'u.eiJ'tdlQc____.$fOIIon5ll!l?ot...___ ' . TI1IsIllt..____...IOl'~__~.Il1"'8*nl..--- _ll('''ifte'''..d T_RoiI_ _pIW, 1ICHlI. 017,11I_ County. . . Tlll&1IoI" _....., _orll>o~.'''''' d"""'-' , ~0I1h. ....._ not roIloM> 1IIJd:::: OI-.utDIy .llpC ,1bIII1y __..., In _7lJ61UOffhe~ unci .,.., COde, SlIaIan 5017.84 of~ P\IbIoi 1'leG ~ 1M S8cIIon.,,, Of VIe Pubfkl R~ - ..4J. CDdO. i ........l fori'" pl":)Jfakd Nativ. Amertcan Contacts Riverside County August 15. 200S Soboba Band of Mission Indians Charlene Ryan, CuIt\JJ'al Director P.O. Box 487 'Lulseno San Jacinto . CA ~1 qyanOsoboba-nlifl.gov (951) 854-2765 FAX: (951) 654-4198 TwentyoNine Palms Sand of MIssion Indians Dean Mike. Chairperson 46-200 Harrison Place .. Lulseno CoacheIIa . CA 922S6 Chemehuevl tri~~worldnet.att.mtt (760) 775-5566 . (760) 775..t639Fax . Illlullot...!IfIIlIUIll1lICUIIItI_-*'''''....I____..__ TtIMOdI:~ HotpbI, SCHI:zD!5OI'I017, ........COldJ. e e e . . ;~ IlIA - . . ff!..,,;j!/~0/.i;:, Il~~: ..~ t~:_. .~; i; ! i / \1/ l!/J AUG 19 2005 .;.. '...'1 L~.:..=__::.__. . 1 --" mverslde Transit AgoIIGY 1625 Thiltl Slreel P.O. Box 59956 Riverside, CA 02517.1956 P~an.. (951) 5~OOO Fax, (951) 585-5001 August 18, 2005 · Emery J Papp, Project Planner Planning Department. City of Temecula PO BOl( 9033 . Temecula CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: Initi~1 Study for PAo4-0463 "Temecula Regional HO$p'~ - Cc>mments from RTA . . Thank you for thj!!opportunily to review Ihe Initial StUdy for CUPPA04-0463:for iiie535;iJoOsQ ft Temecula ReglOr"!al Hospital and the adjacent medical offices complex to be located north of State Route 79 (SR 79 South) and west of Margarita Rd in Temecula. A copy of the RTA internal review memo on ihe project and some earlier correspondence is attached for further information. RTA has previou~ly noted that future. bus service is highly likely along SR 79 and that the buses will be stopping a\ the proposed hospital. The City of Temecula has expressed previous support for the concept o(a bus tumout and related amenities alon9 SR 79 to be installed by the project sponsors. Indeed, this support is again noted on Page 34, Item 15g of the Initial Study. RT A continues 10 requesl the transit amenities at this site and looks forward io working with the City and the sponsor's architect to design an optimum transit-to-pedestrian ci)nnec!ion to the hospital buildings.' Therefore. based on this support, RTA staff agrees with t~e environmental determination for CUP PA04-0463 and offers the comments hareln for the re,Cord. If you need any a~ditional clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at (951) 565-5164 or conteicrt me at mmccov@riversidelransil.COIlJ Sincerely. ~W~ Michael McCoy ; I Senior Planner . F:\dma\Pfar'lning\MikeM\~ord\D$Y Review\Temecula\2005\RTA Lthd - TemecHospSfate IS.<loc W' -... "ill:~L_""'" RhmoIdoi 'll'allislt All"." August 18, 2005 e PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To; Augustus Ajawara, Director of Planning . . MIi';hael McCoy, Senior Planner ~ : city of Temecula CUP 04..()463 and related documents for 'nmecula Regional Hospital' and other medical offices, totaling 635,000 sq ft, lo~ed along Slate Route (SR) 79 near Margarita Rd in Temecula. -- RTA Comments RTA bus routers) affected. None now, but there are potential.routes in the future. From: Subject . . Summary: To m!let requlrement5 of the CEQA environmental review p,pce55, the City of Temeculs hu prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Temecula RegIonal Hospital under Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 04-0463, Parcel Map 32468 and rehlted planning cases. The 535,000 square foot hospital and related medical offices wlli be located on the north side of'SR 79, west about Y, mile from Margarita Rd. . RTA has twice pr1evlously commented to the City (Jl.lly 21,2004 and Match 10, 200$, copies attached) :snd acknowledges that the City supports the provisiori of transit amenities along the SR 79 frontage relative to the hospital. Indeed, In t~e Initial Study now under review. on page 34 It states under. Item 15g that the applicant will be required to place a bus tutnout In cooperation with RTA. The bus agency i5 grateful for the CIty's support of thi5 important future transit node at the Hospital. A letter will be sent to the City of Temecula stating RTA's agreement with t;te environmental determination in t/1e Inilial Study for CUP 04-0463 and for the agency's continuing request for the bus turno~ and related amenities at the site. . . . . . . INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION" Review completed date:. August 18, 2005 Documents received at RTA: August 8,2005; . Reply-by Date: Allgust 20. 2oo5?: Planning Commission Agenda Date: Unknown; . City Council/Bd of Supervisors Agenda Date: Unknown at present: ~ Thomas Guide Map page grid: 979; 0-2; Case Numbers: P04-0462, P04-0463, PM 32468; Case Planner: Emery Papp, (961) 694-6400; Applicant: UHS of Delaware Inc. of King of Prussia PA RTA PLANNING FoLLOW-UP: ,/ Standard "Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction with or without comments Letter with Comments advisin9 project modifications re transit issues Letter sent: Date:: (,!rrjo~ SECOND REVIEW: Review materials placed in archive files: Date: e F~\dara\PIal'!njno\MikeM\vford\Dev Review\TemecuJa\2005\TemsculaHospState IS.doc }~ :~ .'1r~ -. - OJ, . , r..., , '(,.~. . ,...-: .1' '_', . July 21, 2004 Riverside Tr.ancit Agoncy 1625 ThlnJ Street P.O. Box 5fl96B Riverside, CA 92517.19611 Phone: (909) 565-5000 Fa", (909) 566.5001 Mr. Dan Long, C~se Planner Planning Dept., City of TemeculB P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92~89-9033 SUBJECT: P04-0462 and PA04-0463 - Temecula Hospltal- Comments ;rom RTA . Dear Mr: Long: Thank you for the ~pportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,OoP sq ft medical complex at Temequla Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's internal Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility optioils for this project. To encourage and. enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTArecommends the site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the follOwing featu~es: . A paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant transit bus stop with a 220 ft-lo~ turnout configura- tion capabl~ of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed alOl1g the Nside of SR 79, Just west of the primary hospital entrance. The bus stop should inborporate a paved passenger 'waiting area and space for installation of benches and pas~enger shelters. . . . . Information note: Sufficient right-of-way appears available for this tur~oul without significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure Installations. .RTA staffis alsp recommending designation on the plans of an addillonal specified clear path of traVel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital btjllding. · RT A staff a)so advises thai the project proponents work with the City \0 install two new passenger ~helters at the new bus stop that are compnmentary to fhe hospital'S design and architectural themes: . RT A requests thes~ recommendations be made conditions of approval for PA 04-0462 and PA04-0463. If you! need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at (909) 565-5164 or contact me online at mmccov@riversidelransit.com. Sincerely. Michael McCoy Senior Planner . F:ldatalPlanning\MikeMlWordlDev Reviaw\Teme<:ula\2004\RTA Llrhd. Temec Hasp.doc \ '~~ ::~ .~ ,., " · 4'. .. ..~ ,>+...., e Rfvoraido Tr8n.Jt AglJncy 1825 Tl1ird'Shel P.O. Box 5996tl Rivsroide. CA 92517.1968 Phone: (909) 565-5000 Fax: (909)~1 March 10, 2005 Mr. Dan Long, Associate Planner Planning Dept, city of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 . Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: P04..()462 and PA04-0463 - Temecula Hospltal- Comments from RTA Dear Mr: Long: Thank you for the opportunity to review the mitigation measures for the proPQsed 535,000 sq ft medical complex st Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. The measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration state several times that ~ bus tumout shall be provided at the:project site along the State Route 79 frontage. This requi~ment is satisfac- tory with Riverside Transit Agency and we are supportive of its language, especially references to cooperation with Caltrans and City of Temecula Public Works and about niaking the bus tumout a conditiori of approval. We have no further recommendations for lhis project. We look forward !Ii working with the partnering agencies. For assistance, ardhitects are referred to the RT A Design' Guidelines on our internet sile home page: www.riversidetransit.com for further infonnation:as to siting and configuring the bus turnout. Just navigateiacross the page to the Design Guidelihes link and one may view, download or print the document. It is a rather large .pdf file with inany graphics and may take a few minutes to load onto some systems. If you need further'clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at (951) 565.5164 or conlact me onli'1e at mmccovtWriversidetransit.com. . Sincerely, . If Michael McCoy Senior Planner F:\dala\PIanninglMikeMiWord\Dev ReviewlTemeculal2005\RTA L1md. Temec HospMND-GUP;doc e WARREND. WILlIAMS C<:ncral M....gor-CbiefEnginecr . e . @ , 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.7118.9965 FAX maD.! . RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTRGL.. .r . . AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICt! n05 ~~n~es=....nt · . . AUG 2 9 Z Posl OllIce Box 9033 . Temecula, Callfornta 92589-9033 Attention: ~t-J.6-rl-'" '3. 'f'~ . . ..~ ladies lInd Gentlemen:, Re: if..-l. . '3.1.'-H..9 f i . I The District does not IiQnnaIIy recommend conditions for land divisions 0( other land use 'ses in Incorporated cl\ies. The District also doGlI rtot plan checl< !=ill' 11Ind use cases, or PfQVIl:le Slate Division of Real $\ate letters or other flOOd h!lZllfd reports for IUd! cases. Distrid <:ollllJll!lltstrecommendations for such . c;ases a.'Il .... I~ limited to Items of &PeCIflclOterest Io",YkiOlalrlGt Includina..P/8llicl Master DI8lt18!le PIaJl.'fadl~.---;..e",.tOOt:\lll:ll,JJ1"",;~.. . .-G19111lltie'fiIelIitieS. ..rQMd'W~rlltta-l~trQJUjIi[ Of ext~il81oi'illt'"lIliim~ an'iysliiif:anaDlsum-. -- - .. Area Di1llnage Plan fee:s (deve1oprnent mltigaUoJl fee$l. In addition, Information of a ge " nature is proVIded. The Disltk:t has not m.Jtewed the proposed project In detail end the following checl<ed corilments do not In any way constitute or Imply District l!PprDVal or endorsement of the proposed projec:t With respect to tood hazard, public l\ealth and safety or any other llUc/i Issue: .. No comment.: . . This PrpJecl '6iluld not be Impacted .by District Master Oralnage Plan facilities /1or IlIll other fadlllies of reglOt'oal D1tere4t proposed. . . ! This projeli i~O District Master Plan facilities. The DistrIct VII! acceDl ~p of such faciliJies on written requ<!sl I)f the quy. Facilities must be c:onstructed to District $\andards, 8$d District plan check and inspection will be requlnid for District acceptance. Plan check, Inspection and administrative fees Wlll be required. ; : ThIs project ~~ channels, slonn d/illns 36 inctles or larger in diameter or 01i1er facil~ies that could be CXlIloldeied mgJC>nal in nature ai1dIor a l()gical extension of 1M edo~ i Master Dralrnilii! Plan. The District woula cOnsider accepting ownlilWlip or SUCl1 ~llleS on 't/ntlen request of the Cilv. Fatl1ilies must be constructed to District 8lanilards, and DIstrict plan ~ and Inspection WIll be required for District acceplance. Plan check, Inspectlon and adinlnlsb'ative fees w11libe required. This project is' t<lC8ted within the Hmlts of the Dlstrlct's ! Area bralna.u e Plan for which dralnlllle fees have been edoDled' appllC8D1e JeGS GhOUl<! ~e IX!Kl by casOlers chec:t< or mon<!)' llf<ler, o~x.: tha FloOd Control DiStrIct or. City j;ilor lo final ~a1 of the project. or In the case of a P8I'CeI map or ivislon prior 10 recordation of thlil fiiial map. Fees 10 be p;.i(I $houla be at thlil rate In . effect at the till\G of recordatIOn, or if defelTed, at the time of Issuance of tha actuilf J1ennl1. $- IVJ encroachm~ pemllt Gh8Il be obtained for any constnJclioo related ~vitle$ ocburring within District right of way or fa'filities. For fwther information, contact the Dlsll1ct's en<:roac!1rnenr permit section at 951.955.1266.. -n>""",c,,1,.fo. ~ \-t,.,)I!-" , GENERAL INFORMATION ., :rfiJaplllJ.Il'I8\I';~~ a Natlonal.PoIlutan! Discharge .~~ Svstem (NPDESl ~ frein.the ~le Watar ReSO\lrCiell CorillOUlQatd. Clearance for 1!'!~~l1t reeoiClalion, or other floal 8ppn:1val olioulcf not be gIVen until the City /las determined that th... projeel has been w"'''''''' a pemllt or IS shown to be Iilxsmpl. ! If this Pf!ljea Involves J Federal Emergefl!:Y Man\l9'!mant AgE!f1CY (FEMAI mapPJld Uood ~ain, then the .Cllv should require !fie applicant tiJ provide 8llitudl~ !"'Ioulatlons, 1>1_ iIncl other lnfonnatlon :fIlgUired to masl FEMA .!8ClUlrementa, end should IUrther require that IDa applicant Obtain a Conditional Letter of MaD Revislon IClOMRl prior to grading, recordation ~ other final approval of lh8 project, andll Letter of Map ReYlslon (L?~l prior fo occupancy. If a !l8turat w~tercours~ or mapped flood plaln Is !mPllcted !1Y It1ls Prolect. the City GhouI\l require the aoclicant to obtain a Section 160111603 Alimement from the California DeJ>!lrtnienl of Ash aM Game and a Clean Water Act ;?ectior\ 404 Penn/t froni the U.S. Ann~ Corps of engineers or written COIre~ence from:these 89!ncies indicating the p'roject is .exempl from these requirements. A Clean Water AD. SectIon 401 Water Q~allh' certifiCation '!1"Y ba lllQuire<l from the local C::allfomia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to Issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, ~~ c: Riverside County:Planning Department Atln: David Mares ARTURO DIAZ , Senior Civil Engineer. : Date: 9 -:d25 -V'5l f.-M . . :.~...!...,........,. . . , .- CllOIirpen;on: ticnnall'lc A I'Cna~ e PECtiANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES Temecula Band of Luir:eiio Missirm Indians Vioc Chairp~r~n: MaryHrorMagec l'q,sl om!;!:. J1ux 2183 . T~ml:\,;lIlil. CJ\ 92593 Teleplt\lrIl;: (9$1) 'O~.9295. foll,\ (951) 506-949J ('vmmilkl; MI.-mber:f: R.1YTJWtI,d nllli(P.lt'"~. SL E'lIie Gerber Datl~ Miranda Bridgell Bnt'\:ellll M,lxwell lJircclor: {inry DuHol!l August 29, 2005 (;llnrumawr: f'a\lIMs.CarTO Emery J. Papp. City ofTemeculli Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SEP 0 2 2005 Cullul1lJ Anal,,~t: Sh::pbcmit: (j~ Mo,Lil0r Supen-Ciur: Aurclill MIllTUOh Re; Comments on Temeeula Regional Hospital Dear Mr. Papp, This cominentletter is submitted by the Pechanga Band of Lubciiu Indians (hereinafter, "Pechanga Tribe~'), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign goverliment. The Pechllnga Tribe is fonnallyrequcsting, pursuant to Public Resources Code ~21092.2, to be notified and involved in the entire CEQA envirolUllental review process for the duration ofthe above referenced project (the "Project"). e We submit the following comments on the above Iisled document for the Project. Additional comments may be submitted directly by Pechanga or through their attorneys. We request that all such comments be part of the official record for the approval of this Project. Wc also request that tile City of Temeeula provide us with copies of all archeological studies. reports, site records, proposed testing plans, and proposed mitigation measures, and conditions as soon liS they become available, for our comment. THE I.EAD AGENCY MUST INCLUDE AND CONSULT WITH THE TRIBE IN ITS REVIEW PROCESS . Saci:ed If 11le Du~v Trllstt~li Ullta Our Care And With HOllor We Rise 10 The Need . . . Pechanga comment letter to the City ofTemecula Planning Department RE: Temecula Regionlll HO~1Jital Page 2 It has been the intent of the federal Governmentl and the State ofCalifomia2tbat Indian tribes be consulted with regard to issues which impact cultural and spiritual resources, as well as other governmental concerns. The responsibility to consult with lndian tribes sterns from the unique government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. This arises when tribal interests are affected by the actions of governmental agencies and departments such as approval of Specific Plans and EIRs. In this case, it is undisputed that the project lies within the Luiseful tribe's trllditionalterritory. Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and other applicable i\'ederal and California law. it is imperative that the Lead Agency and the Project applicant consult With the Tribe in order to guarantee an adequate basis of knowledge for an appropriate evaluation of the project effects. as well as generating adequate mitigation measures. PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES The Pechauga Tribe is not opposed to this development project. The Pechanga Tribe's primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native American cultural resources. ThepechangaTnbe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources, such ai; Luiseilo village sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by ground-disturbing work on the project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items, Nali ve American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in thc course of the work. The Tribe:would also like to point out that a preferred method oftreatmc:nt for archeological sites according to the CEQA is avoidance (California Public Resources Code ~21083.1), and that this is in agreement with the Tribe's practices and policies concerning cultural resources. TIle Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Projcct arca is part ofthc Pcchanga Tribc's aboriginal territory, as evidenced by the existence ofLuiseilo place names, rock art pictographs. petroglyphs and extensive artifact records found in the vicinity of the Project. Given this threshold for scope ofPechanga traditional territory, the Pechanga Tribe is concerned about the potential impacts 10 LuiseflolPechanga resources which may occur throughout the Project area. The Peehanga Tribe contends that the Project area is likely to contain cultural resources due to the fact that numerous sites have been recorded close to the project. Given all the information, there is a very strong likelihood of locating sub-surfacc rcsourccs during groUnd disturbing activities. In additiop, this Project is in close proximity to the Temecula Creek,'which is a very well kno,!,"1l and documented habitation area for the Luise.llolPechanga people. The entire corridor of Highway 79, with the width ofthat corridor extending from the Temecula Cicek to Pauba Road to the north is a travel and trade route, as well as containing pennane"t habitiltion routes along I See Execu6ve Memorandum of April 29. 1994 On Guvenunent-to-Governmenr Relations with Native American Tnbal Governments and Executive Order of November 6. 2000 on Consultation and Coordiillltion with Indian Tribal Governments. 2 StN Cl1lifomiH Pubiic RC8oun:e Code S5091.9 ct ::ieq. 'l'~('hul1ga er,/tural R€:,wun'(f..'i . Tt:'met'ulu Ba.nd (~f Lui.wdjo Mi.\'sion lndian.<; POSl ()Dic:~ Box 2183. T(!Jn'~('.'Il'a. CA 92592 Slli..'rC!d l\' 111(: Duty Trusted limo Our CarP. And WiTh HOf1()r We .Rise Ib The Nefd Pechanga comment letter to the City of Temecula Planning Department RE: Temecula Regional Hospital Page 3 . e the length of il In addition to the habitation areas along this CQrridor, there .are many burial and ceremonial areas:. It is important to note that human remains have previously been found on an adjlWOOt parcel to this tract, the exact nature or which will be disclosed to the City during consultation witli the Tribe. This area which comprised the tract map is located in an extremely culturally sensitive area to the pechanga Tribe, and the cultural significance. must be taken into account when evaluating project environmental impacts. The pecnanga Tribe's knowledge ofllie CQntinuous occupation of the Lniseno people in this geographicaL area for thousands of years, through their stories and songs, are cultural evidence that subsurface sites may exist in this Project area. Therefore, the Pecnanga Tribe requests that in the case of discovery of new or additional sites or resources; that the Lead Agency re-evaluate the Project impacts to cultural resources and adopt appropriate mitigation measures to addtess such. The pechanga Tribe intends to assert its legal rights with respect to additional finds of significant sites or cultural resources which are of sacred and ceremonial significance to the pechanga Tribe. Given that Luiseno cultural resources will likely be affected by the Project, the Pechanga Tribe must be allowed to be involved and participate with the Lead Agency: and the Project Applicant in developing all monitoring and mitigation plans for the duration of the Project. Further, given the potential for archaeological resources within the Project area, it is the position of the Pcchanga Tribe that Pechanga tribal monitors should be required to be present during all ground-disturbhig activities conducled in cornlcction with the project, including any archeological teSting performed. It is further the position of the pechanga Tribe that an Agreement regarding appropriate treatment of cultural resources be drafted and entered into. e Further, the Pcchangll Tribe believes that ifhuman remains are discovered, State law would apply and the mitigation measures for the permit must account for thili. According to the I California Public Resources Code, ~ 5097.98. if Native American human remains are discovered, the Native American Heritage cOlllmission must name a "most likely descendant," who shall be cOl)sulted as to the appropriate disposition of the remains. Given the Project's location in Pechanga territory, the Pechanga Tribe intends to assert its rightpursuant to CalifOrnia law with regard to any remains or items discovered hi the course:ofthis project. And, accordingly, thePechanga Tribe further requests that the Lead Agency work with the Tribe 10 draft llU agreement which would addre.'>S any inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources, including hllllllUi remains. ;: Also, sw;veys and grading may reveal significant archaeological resOurces and sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the historic site register, and may contain human remains or sacred items. : Therefore, we request that the Lead Agency commit to evaluating Project environmental impacts to. any cultural sites that are discovered during archeological testing and grading, and to lUiopt appropriate mitigation for such sites, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe. REQUESTED MITIGATION Pe.c!Ul1'lgtl CU/lural Re.mUl'l.:es -lemecula Band nfT.ui.'w,i"o Mi::;su:m Indian" Post Offia Rox 2J81. Temec.uJlJ, CA 91592 . Sacred /,,. 111C! Duty Trusted Unto Our Care And Willi llanor We. Rise To The Nl'.ed . . . Peehanga comm~nt letter to the City ofTemecul. Planning Department RE: Temecula Regional Hospital Page 4 The Tribe requests that appropriate assessment of tile archeological and cultur-al r~OUTCes on the Project property be evaluated to detennine significant and appropriate treatment by a qualified archeologist in conjunction with the Pechanga Tribe. Any such testing should involve the Tribe, and all tests to detennine impacts should be completed prior to projcct approval. For the reasons above, the Pechanga Tribe requests the following mitigation measures be adopted at the present time. Upon CQmpletion of a thorough archeological assessment additional mitigation measUres may be necessary. 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project ApplicantiDeveloper is required to enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiscflo Indians. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be uncovered during construction as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 2. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground-breaking activities within native soils in the Tribe's aboriginalterritofy, including further surveys, to be compensated by the Project ApplicanuDevelciper. The Pechanga Tribal monitors will have the authority to temporarily stop and redirect grading activities to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources disCQvered on the property, in conjunction with the archeologist and the Lead Agency. 4. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural' resources, including all Luiscilo sacred items, burial goods and all archeological artifacts that are: found on the Project area to the Pechaitga Band of Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition. 5. All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and preserved. The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with Emery J. Papp, the City of Temecula Planning Department and other interested agencies in proteCting the invaluable Luiseflo cultural resources found in the Project area. If you have any qUel!tions, please do not hesitate to contacj me at (951) 308.9295 or Laura Miranda at (951) 676-2768, Ex!. 2137. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Sincerely, ~ Stephanie Gordin Cultural Analyst Pcchnnga C'tdlUml Re.wml"t:es . 1(~mrcufa Band ofLuL\'eiio Mi,\'sirlfl Indians PostOffiC(! Box 2JR3,. Temet.ulll. C41J2592 Sa(;red is The DU~lI Trusted {If/lO Our ewu And With Honor We Rise Ih l'he Nf'fJd . . Appendix B Air Quality Worksheets . e . . :8 '" M M '" M lil o o M '" , ro WM "', "'ro "'0 o c-- ro m " a -0 " .rl ;;< ... a "-' N o o '" lfJ H :8 W al "' :::> .Q ... ~ M '" +-> .rl '" m a '" '" M ~ U W E W E-< ./ '" -" '" m +-> U W -n a ... '" ./ c-- ro " a .rl m ... W > m W M W "'''' " .o:N '" o o '" m " a a U) H -.-I H m :8 ... W "W a:l -..-I P- "' m :::> "'''' ...............-ilDO '" '" 0 (j)+.iHN rl ...-1 ..-1 U -.-I o..o::c: f'i; "-' '" "-' a+->:8 "''''W '" a " U a .c-o +-> W ~ '" a '" lfJal E '" ... '" "'M a ~ ... u '" W ./ E W UE-< '" " o .rl '" '" .rl E W <lJ M U .rl .c " W a> .rl +-> ... W '" a E u +-> '" a a GJZH:E E ro-W-WTI z () u ro W W a Q) -n-nP::: rl 0 0 r -rl l--l H I=: r.....~P..O '" W ... '" ... W E-< ~ "' ~ OlfJ '" WI "' :>, " '" ",0 :Ii~ :8-0 :::> " lfJ ~ a '" OE-!NU) ...-iUJr-co :88 P-.Clr-rl M '" M E-< o (f) LI) Ul .--l;::J0'I0'l :8.0: p.,::r:r-lr-l XMM W O...::lr-O ri,.::Cl..Oco :8E-< p-'OO\(Y) E-<Nlil M N"'''' 000 lfJ 00 OMM Ulillil ro ro "'''' "'''' XMM Ororo Z N'" ro ro "'''' l'JMM 0"'''' "' M M '" '" Ul W E-< :Ii H E-< lfJ W Z o H lfJ lfJ H :8 W Z o H E-< U 8 "' E-< lfJ Z o U -0 <lJ-o +-> <lJ '" +-> "'''' .rl '" +->.rl .rl +-> E .rl " E ~ >,>, '" '" -0-0 < " < '" '" <oO.Q MM '" o o lfJ lfJ "',.,,., "'''' < E-< E-< . 00 < E-< E-< OE-<U)U) rlU)NN :88 0..000 E-< DU)NN .-l;::Jr--r-- :8", o...;:r::(")(Y) X W o ....:::If.... r-- r-l~mO'l :8E-< t:l-!O('f)(Y) E-< NOO 000 lfJ 00 0"'''' UMM 'lillil M M MM X"'''' OMM Z "'''' ro ro l'JNN Ororo "' "'''' M M -0 w-o +-> W "'+-> "'''' .rl '" +->.rl .rl +-> E .rl " E ~ >,>, '" '" -0-0 . " . '" m . .QoO M M c-- o OlfJlfJ N"'''' .0:.0: < E-< E-< < 00 < E-< E-< OE-;U)t1"} ...-lU)NN :88 n..ooo E-< DCI)OOOO ri8(Y)(Y) :8'" n..::r:;r<1C0 X W OH(Y)('f) rl~I.O\.O :8E-< p.,O(Y)(Y) E-< "'00 000 lfJ 00 0"'''' UMM "'''' M M M M XMM O"'~ Z lillil ro ro l'J00 Oc--c-- <>: "'''' MM -0 W-o +-> W '" +-> "'''' .rl '" +->.rl .rl +-> E .rl " E ~ >,>, '" '" -0-0 . " < '" '" ..Q.Q MM ro o o lfJ lfJ "',.,,., "'''' . E-< E-< < 00 < E-< E-< OE-tU)l.!) .--I(J)NN :88 n..ooo E-< DU)NN rl8.--lr-i :8.0: p..::r:r<lC'l X W OHr--r-- .-1..:1.;(")(") :8E-< P-.O(')(") E-< NOO 000 lfJ 00 0"'''' UMM c-- c-- M M M M XOO Oc--c-- Z M M ro ro l'Jroro Olil", <>: "'''' MM -0 w-o +-> <lJ '" +-> "'''' .rl '" +->.rl .rl +-> E .rl " E ~ >,>, '" '" -0-0 . " . '" '" <.Q.Q M M '" o o lfJ lfJ N"'''' .0:.0: < E-< E-< . 00 < E-< E-< OE-lNN ,..-tU)U)U"') :88 P-<Ooo E-< OU)U)LI) rl8\.O\.O :8.0: o...::r::l--r-- X W DHr-r- r-i~rlrl :8E-< P-lOcoco E-< NOO 000 lfJ 00 000 Ulillil c--r-- M M "'''' x"'''' O"'~ Z "'''' MM N'" l'JMM 0"'''' <>: "'''' "'''' "'''' -0 w-o +-> W '" +-> "'''' .rl '" +->.rl .rl +-> E .rl " E ~ >,>, '" '" -0-0 < " < '" m '0000 MM o M OlfJlfJ N"'''' .0:.0: < E-< E-< < 00 . E-< E-< .Q e H " rl '" +' .rl '" '" 0 X 0 E-< rlUl '" ::E::> rl '"0 " 0 Ol Ei Ol E-< ./ E-< N Ul .'< 0 ::> N rl"; '" ::EX +' '"X 0 "' 0 rl 0 00 0 '" Ol rl 0 rl N rl N on ::E ::E ::E 0 '" 0 '" CO '" CO H H N N '" 0 ,,; rl rl ./ rl E-< r-- ::E 0 '" E-< 00 '" Ol N 0 N <D N<D " H 0 0 0 00 000 0 '" Ul Ul Ul .rl 0 0 0 '" '" N H Ol 0 Ol rl Ul > Ol to>N N " 0 0 ,,; N <D 0 CO 0 0 0 CO 0 rl U .,- U '" U CO N '" " <D 0 0 <D .,- '" .,- Ul H .rl "' 0 e CO .,- H '" U rl rl ::E H "' " Ol Ol rl rl "' .rl ~ to> :>, '" '" '" '" ::> '" N +' -0 X '" X '" X 00 ./ rl "' 0 0 --.. 0 r-- 0 <D 0 .,- '" '" 0 <D '" 0 '" Z Z Z 0 Ol+, H N 0 Ol "-' .Q CO .,- Ul 00 .....-l -.-l-rl U 0 H '" rl X '" "' '" r-- .rl "''''''' N 0 '" '" 0 E-< "-' '" "-' '" H 0 H Z ~ 00 0 +' ::E 0 '" 0 Ei X '" "' :>, rl '" " "' H '" '" H CO '" tJ' E-< Ul E-< H '" 0 " H '" r-- +' Ul ,,; t'J '" "' t'J CO Ul t'Jrl '" to>rl U 0 Ol " "' r-- .rl t'J 0 CO E-< 0 r-- W Orl 3 0 " ~ " CO " rl H '" ~ '" '" 0 H 0 .c: -0 E-< '" rl ::> '" E-< 00 "' Z .,- "' '" Ol +' Ol '" " r, rl .rl H t'J H 00 0 '" " ./ Ei " '" 0 Ul "' :>'H ::E 0 E-< H .rl Ol 0 '" '" Ol rl+' Z '" Ul Ul 3= UE-< Ul "' W H 0... >,..-1 U} ::> "' Ul '" '" omS ::l H H '" >, '" rlO "'"' Ul Ul Z ::E 0 " H '" >< Ol "-' " "' w 0 w "-' 0 HO ~ H I H E-< E-< "' H "' "' .rl ,,;--.. "' Ol Ol .rl--" ~ ~ Ol Ul Ol H Ol N '" E-< '" " 0 '" +'rl +' Ul +' ,,; +' 0 '" w"' '" rl '" H H '" H '" Z '" 0 .rl 0 " 0 Ol -0 " " E-< E-< to> ::E to> 0 to> N " " .c <D .Q Ol :>: 0 Ul Ul .rl W .rl H .rl "' 0 +' .Q .rl "' W +' +' E-< +' Ul '" " 0 H 0 +' .rl .rl '" .rl H '" 0 " +' " " z z Ei "' Ei '" Ei ::E rl ::E 0 +' +' 0 0 " H " "' " ::E "' 0 .rl '" '" '" .rl H H " U " '" " '" "' .rl +' +' Ol .rl +' +' Ul Ul H 0 '" .c: H '" H 0 .rl '" Ul Ul :>, X :>, :>, rl ::> " Ol '" H ,,; " " H H '" "' '" 0 '" rl 0 > +' " Ol ::> H ::E ::E "' > "' z "' .rl Ul 0 Ol to> --.. "' w --.. --.. ,,; --.. N +' H '" '" :>'Ol '" '" '" rl Ol '" 0 " " ::> Olrl 0 Z w .Q H .Q ,,; .Q Ei 0 +' 0 0 $.-j -r-! -.-\ 0 U rl '" rl "' rl "' '" 0 0 .rl .rl -0 0 Ei44 H Ol '" Z '" 0 Ol Z H ::E +' +' " ,,; '" 44 E-< 0 ::> 0 '" 0 Ei 0 0 '" "-'0 U H 0 Ul H Ul Ul N N '" +' +' "' " " H Ei --.. ::> " Ul H E-< H "' H --.. Z 0 0 '" H H " Olrl '" 0 ,,; ,,; ,,; 0 ,,; 00 Ol Ol 0 +' +' rl g..--t -,--t E-< Ul ,,; E-< '" E-< E-< Olrl Ol -n To cG '" '" '" .rl to>'" Ul W 0 "' 0 ::E 0 "'--.. rl 0 0 I " " +' X ,,+' Z '" E-< '" E-< ::> E-< "'00 .rl H H " 0 0 0 '" .rl Ol 0 . ,,; 0 Ul '"0 "-' ,","0 UU E-< ::EUl'" U . . . (")O......-lr-ll.f) \.OOOO'-D 00000 (l')Lf)C)ro 0000 o:::r 00'<3" (l')(Y)\.Orirrl \.pacor-- 0"<1' 0 0 "<I" MOM 000 000 ooooro N "'" l.ll.--{ f'J 0 N \.0 <D <D COr<1<:::rlJ) roo::rNlf) CONOrl <D '" "'" rl rl \.0 o:::r rl rl \.0 rl 00.--1 rl rl ~ " o -n ~ ~ -n 8 OJ " o -n '-' -n rl rl o (]) rl E.j.J U) Q) -J< Q) tI) Q) U) -I< 0 ::::S',; Q) -I< oO.rl '" 0 o o "I ,., '" "0 ----- '" "'.0 o.rl -n ~ 8 E-< ~ E -n x '" '" <1J"O rl > '" .n 0 (])'-'cG -J< ((l-.-f I -I< m tJ1!.1-l -J< ..c;:J!.I-l '""'0 "0 '" ~ o <1J cG-'" I ~ " 0 0;" OOONN (--0 00 t-- r-ooor- rl rl rl rl "<1' rl 0 to 0\000) ...--lOO.....-l rl rl Oo:::rr-lNr- r-O'\ 00 I..D ["-.--foam rlrl "I rl rl rlOrl 000 000 rl Cf\ rl r-! r-or-lI) \.0 0 ..-l co M M M M C")NI.O.....-l f'J"<:t'OCO NOON <D <D "I "I \.O<'JM,-j r-OriO'l rl 0 O.--l "''' " C o -n '" '" -n E OJ '" C -n "0 '" ~ 19 ,., '" rl "0 ill Q) rl ......... .j.J .j.J (J) Q) U) ..-1 (f) Q) U) (f)..Q CI) :::l'rl Q) 0..-1 Cl 0 'M ''; o ~ 8 E-< ~ U E ro i-{-.-I o (]) X cG-"'''' I ~ '" C 0 0;" (])"O "I > '" -n 0 (])'-'cG U)..., I '" '" 4-< -"~4-< "''''0 "I e- m'" rl 0 '" 0"1 ON 00 e-N 00 " 0 e- e- ON " 0 o o o o <D mo "I rl "'''I o o o aOOl!) GOON 0000 '" 0. -n ~ E-< o o o 0000'\ 0000 ooo"<t' o o 000 o:::r OOOf') o 000 'G' o o 000 000 000 o o o o oooco aoom 000 (Y) rl rl o o ooom 00000 GOON '" o '<3"0000000(") f'll.Ooooooom NrlOOOOOOr0 rl rl U '"'" C 0 ~ .r-! cr; Q) U 1-'" rl4-<~ .r-! 4-1 0 ~ 0;" co '" 0. -n H E-< rl (])rl '" '" (]) m j...j Q) U) u) t9 Q) ...-1 Q) 0. 1 ~ 0.........-1 4-1 j...j 0 S-l >. 4-1 0 '0 E--t ru 08: U) ro u U ctlOfll\.-l.......... U)(I)\.9O:;OQJUl b'1 bl I I cr;..Y:..Q C C 4-1li-1 I \....l r-l .j.J .j.J ..-1 .r-! !.I-l 4-1 C 0 U)U).j.J.j.JOOO:S:E c C ro ro ;:J (Y) 0 0 0 0 .j.J .j.J .j.J .j.J S UUUU.....-lr-!rlrl.rl Q) m ro ro ro x U) tJI tJl..c..c: ..c ..c ..c: ..c m fI1"O"O U U o.o.n.o..:E ..c rl rl S-l j...j U) U) Ul U) o...CClCClf't';,::r;r<~..:r.;r:r.: C o -~ '-' U ~rl ~ <1J '-' '" '" <1J " -n 00 U N e- e- rl rl "1 '" rl rl e- '" '" N rl M o o rl "1 <D '" M rl <D "I <D "I rl '" rl " '" <1J '" '" -" 0. rl rl '" ,., '" U ----- '" .0 rl X '" '" 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ~ " o .n '" '" -n 8 OJ C o -n '-' -n rl rl o (]) El '-' ~ 1< <!J (J) llJ 1< O::S-..-I . 00 e- o o rl "I ,., '" U ----- '" "'.0 o.rl -n H 8 E-< ~ 8 n X '" :8 rl <1J ~ (]) -n o U '" ~ o <1J cG-'" I ~ C 0 0;" <1J"O :> '" -n 0 (])'-'cG 1< (J)-..-I I 1< rtl 0> 4-r 1< .c ::j 4-r '""'0 0000 0000 0000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 00 00 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 '" c: o -n '" '" -n 8 OJ '" " -n "0 '" H <.9 rl <1J <1Jrl +J+J(J)Q) -..-I (J) Q) (J) (f) U) ::j ...-1 Q) 0.. o Cl -..-I -..-I o H (]) "0 E-< N ~ rtl"D -..-I 0 rtl H (}) -1-.l 0::; 0 (}) (J) -..-I I 0::; ~ rtl 0> 4-< I H .c ::j l+-l C 0 p..,i:L.OO2:: o o o 0", ON 00 o o ON r--O <'"10 o o o or-- r--N <'"10 o o o o o o o <'"1N <'"1 00 "'''' '" e-< o o o o o aOOl!) aDON 0000 o o o aOON ooor- 000('1") o o o o ODOr- 0000'1 000(") o o o 000 000 000 o o o 000'<1' 000..---1 aDDU") e-< e-< o o o NNIOIOOQ'<3' NO'> 0 aOOr-i roo 0 Doom 00 ro o o o <<:rroOOOOOON (")'<;j'ooooooro Nr-lOOOQOO(Y') e-< e-< >-< '" -" >-< o -0 3: U} ltl '0 ru 0 ro \.-l U) fI} 19 0:: 0 Q) tJI 011 I rx: ~ S::C4-l4-l1 k +J ..j...J.,-j ...-1 4-1 4-l c: 0 (fl(l)..j...J+JOOO3:S C C m ro ~ (")OOOO+J.j....I..j.J-J-J~ UUUUrlrlrlrl-r-1 W m m rn ro X Ul tJI tJI..c::: ...c ..c: ..c .c ..c: CO nj'O'O 0 U o..o.o..o.~ ..c: rl rl k k U) (fl U) (fl o...OOO)o<I;":(o<1.';~,::e:,::C " o -rl "' U ~e-< >-< '" "' Ul '" Q) " -rl 00 U >, '" -0 , '" .0 e-< -0 "'''' " 0 -rl r<: "0' e-<,,", -rl,,", ~O "' " ~ " -rl " '" :8 '" '" -rl '" >-< '" E-<l9 , >-<""' "'''"' -"0 >-< o '" '" '" -ri >-< E-< e-< Q)e-< '" Q) '" Ul .rl '" o -rl o Ul '" -rl >-< " E-< '" -0 , Ul .0 e-< "' N o N r-- <'"1 r-- '" <'"1 o o o ~ e-< "' e-< e-< ~ e-< '" ro N 00 <'"1 e-< Ul '" '" '" .c '" e-< e-< '" >, '" -0 , Ul .0 e-< " '" :8 :8 '" e-< e-< . . . 00 o o N N e-< "' o o <'"1 N , 00 ",e-< "" "'00 ,"0 . . . 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 10000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 '" " o .rl '" '" -ri " "' " o -rl "' -rl e-< e-< o "'e-< E: +J U} Q) Q) U) Q) U) Q :::l-r-I Q) Cl 0...-1 o >, '" -0 , '" "'.0 "'e-< -rl >-< " E-< ~ " -rl " '" :8 "'-0 ......-l :> m '0 ...-t 0 {'(j \.-l Q) ..j...J 0::: 0 Q) (f) -r! I 0::: ~ I'd tJl4-l I H ..c ::Pl--l C 0 0.. rr...O 03 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 '" " o -rl '" '" .rl " [ii '" " -rl -0 '" >-< >, 19 '" e-< -0 Q) Q) rl .......... oW -t-J Ul Q) (I) ...-1 (I) Q) (f) (f) .0 U) :J .r! Q) 0.. r-i OO.rl ...-1 o >-< " Q) "0 E--<:J N :> ro "0 S .r! 0 n:l k-..--t <ll +J P:::; 0 Q) X Ul.rl I P:::; ~ m ru t:JI4--l 1 \.-l:E ..c: :::l 4-l C 0 o...[L,003: . 0", ON 00 "'N <'"10 0')0 "'r-- <'"1N <'"10 o o o r-- r-- '" ~ e r-- 00 '" e-< "'"' "' ro ~ 0 00 ~"'O 0')<'"10 Ne-<O e-< " o -rl "' U ~e-< >-< '" +J Ul Ul '" '" c: -.-I Po 00-..-1 U} U >-< '" -oE-<l9 "'''' , C 0 k 4-f ...-1 p:::; Q>4-l '"OI~O e-<,,",>-< .rl 4-l 0 ~O'" "' '" '" " +J +l-r! Ul Ul", " " '" (') 0 0 0 UUU '" (I) tJltJl..c ro'O'O U .!:.--iMj...j OdIl ro r::t: . e . . o o aooU"') aOON 0000 o o o oooco 000 (Y) OOOP') o o o o OOOr<) 0001..0 000 (Y1 o o 000 000 o 000 o o 000'<:1" 000 r-l o C) 0 0 \!) ,..; ,..; o o aaDri 000'<:1" o aooU"') ro 000000 ooooor- GaODOr<) ,..; Ul 0. -rl H ,..; E-< ill ,..; Ul ill H III u) U} Q) -r-! <V 0. ..'><: 0 -..-I.r! H C11-l>, o '"0 E-< CO :s: (/) ro 1j '0 ctlOrol-l........ U}t9cr;OUlU) tyl I f 0::; ~.o c 4-1 4-l r H rl 'M 4-1 4-1 C 0 -WOOO3.Ei <0 ~ O-W-W+J-WE: U rl rl rl rl .r-! I1j rtl ro ro X "C..c..c..c..crtl 00..0.0.0.::8 i-! to U) tI) U) """"" "' N o ro 0) 0) 0) '" 0) o o o '" ,..; '" ,..; ,..; ,..; '" "' ro o r-- 0) ,..; Ul ill Ul <0 .c 0. ,..; ,..; <0 :>, <0 "0 "- Ul .0 ,..; X <0 '" 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Ul " o -rl Ul <n -rl S "' " o -rl .w -rl ,..; o S . ill . 0 . '" o 0,..; N ,..; ill .w Ul Ul ill ~ -rl 00 :>, <0 "0 ,..; "- ill Ul UlUl.o ill 0.,..; -rl...-I o H S E-< ~ S -rl X <0 '" ill "0 ~ <0 -rl 0 ill.w<< -j< U).rt I -j< m 014-1 -j< ..c;J 4-1 '"~O "0 <0 H o ill <<."< 1 H " 0 03 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Ul <:: o rl <n Ul -rl ~ "' '" " -rl "0 <0 H 19 :>, <0 ,..; "0 QJ Q) rl ........ -W -W U) Q) U} -..-I III OJ U) U}.o U) :::1 .r! OJ 0. rl Cl 0...-1-..-1 o H ~ E-< ~ "0 ~ ro H -..-I o (I) X <<."<<0 1 H '" " 0 03 (1)"0 N ~ <0 -rl 0 ill.w<< (f)..-I I <0 "'''"' .c~,,", '"~O 0"' ON 00 ON "';0 0) 0 Or-- ,..; N 0) 0 o o o 00) ,..; 0 or-- 0,..; ,..; N ro '" r-- 00 ro o o aooU"') aOON 0000 o o o DOON OOOr-! 000("') o o o o ooor- 000f'") 000(") o o o 000 000 000 o o o 000 ('f) OOO,-l DOOr- ,..; ,..; o o o 0000 ODOr- aaOri ro '<3''<:J'OOOOOOCO (Y)NOOOOOOU"') N.--lOOOOOO(Y) ,..; ,..; ,..; (I)"'; Ul (I) (I) Ul Ul ..-1 Q) 0. 0-.-1-..-1 o H :>, "0 E-< <0 U)rtl"O '0 mOrt'li-l......... (I)U}19O::;OaJU) tf\ b'1 I I pc; ~ .0 C:C4--1lHl$.-Jrl +-' .jJ'rl .r! 4-1 4-1 C 0 U)U}-w-wOQo:s:e C C m m ;J MOOQQ-w.j.J-w-wE UUUUrlrlrlrl...-I W ~ m m m X (J) tJ'l tJ'l..c:..c..c..c..c..c ru ~1J1JUUQ..o..Q..Q..::8 ..c rl rl H H (J) (J) (J) (J) o..,rIlrIlr<r<r<r:.x:r<r:.x: <:: o -rl .w U ~,..; H ill .w '" Ul Q) Ul C ...-1 Q.. o Cl ...-1 U H "OE-< "'<0 " 0 H ...-10::; (j) "01."< ,..;,,",'-< ...-14-1 0 ~03 "' '" 0. -rl H E-< Ul <0 H 19 (I) 1."< ""' H ""' 0 03 "' N o o o o N ,..; M r-- 0) 0) o o o o o o M ,..; r-- ,..; ,..; o r-- ,..; ro ro "' M ,..; Ul ill <n <0 .c 0. Ul " o -rl Ul <n -rl ~ "' " o -rl .w -rl ,..; o S.w . (I) '" . 0 ~ . 0 o ,..; 0,..; N ,..; ,..; <0 :>, <0 "0 "- Ul .0 ,..; ill ~ -rl (I).w -l< (J)...-I . <0 '" . .c ~ '"~ X <0 '" 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 >> '" .-; "0 w.-; ____ '" w '" Q)UlUl.Q -r! Q) 0.. ri Cl -..1 -r! o ~ 8 "0 E-<:> '" "0 8 o rO i-l -r! 0::: 0 Q) X 10000...'><:rO ~ I i-l:E "-' " 0 003 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 '" " o -n '" '" .n 8 W '" " -n "0 '" ~ '" >> '" .-; "0 Q) Q)ri ......... +J +J {f) Q) {f) -r! {f) Q) {f) {f).Q UJ:1-rlQ)o.ri o O-r!-r! o ~ 8 E-< :> "0 8 rO i-l-rl OW" "''''''' I ~::8 " 0 03 w"O N ~ '" -n 0 w+-'''' Ul-rl 1 '" "'''-' .<::> "-' 0.,"'0 " o -n -lJ U :>.-; ~ w -lJ U) '" W " .n 00 U U) "- -n '" " '" "OE-<<9 "'''' I C;Ol--l~ -..1 0::: Q)4-l '0 I ...'><: 0 .-;"-'" -..1 ~ 0 :>03 01 0", ON 00 .,. N roo NO .,.r-- OON NO .,.r-- .,.'" N", 0.-; .-; .-;N r-- r-- r--O 0 r-- <::rf'10f'10 f'lr-l["-r-l\.O N .-; .-; "' N o N o o r-- N o o o o o o o r-- '" "' .-; N r-- "''-;0 00 .-; '" '" .n " E-< " '" '" " o 3 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" I "" "-' +J +J-rl-rl4-l UlUl+J+JO C C 1tI rO f'10000+J UUUUri '" '" Ul tyo tyo.c .c ,.c: ltI'O'OUUo.. .c:rirlHl--IUl P-.CQp:j~ft.;f'l; ::8 0., .-; .-; N .-; "' o o .,. N ---- 00 w.-; "'---- "'00 0.,0 OONN OOOLO 0000 f'l<::rOLO r-OO\.O <::roar- f'l <::r N r- ["-00......-1 <::rooeo 000 000 000 r-\.OO\O ......-IcY) ......-ILO NO......-l["- ro .-; .-; 0) 00 eo l.ll '-.D '<;J" r- 0 <::r LO......-I 0 1..0 0) .-; .-; N <::romrl co r-l om rlOOf'l N N N .-; w.-; '" w w '" '" -..1 Q) 0. o -rl-rl o ~ >> "0 E-< '" '" "0 "0 0111l--1......... 0::: 0 Q) Ul 10:::...'><:.0 4-l I H rl "-' " 0 0038 :> +J+J+JE ri rl ri -rl 111 1tI rO X .c:.c:.c:ro 0. 0.. 0. :E '" '" '" """ N "' o "' '" r-- r-- .-; 00 o o o o "' r-- .-; 0) '" .,. '" .-; N .-; '" 0) N N U) w '" '" .<: '" .-; .-; '" >> '" "0 ---- '" .0 .-; " '" ::8 '" o " '" '" " ':J o .n +Jrl 00 ~Q)Ul~~ :J Ul,.c::J:J E-I (f) m.w 0 U "2: (f).cc--> " 0., 0 8.-; "" '" OOf'l+J -rl 4-l 0 +-' E-< -n" .-; '" o w 8,., w____ 0'<: -lJ " o .-;::8.-; o 00 00 .,.", "' .-; +-'+-' W W W '" "-' "-'.,. 00 >> .-; .-; -n '" '" ~ o '" " E-< . >> '" o ---- '" " :> o '" ~ o +-' U '" '" "0 '" o H " w :. o '" '" '" ~ o '" e +-' " w 8 ",w ...'><: -rl 0. U :> >> :> tT E-< " W E-< "'''' "0 C c '0 rO -..1 -rl 1tI 0 Q)+JQ)"U"U00::: UlHUlrlrlO:::IO It.'! It.'! rO -rl -rl I 4-l Z .c: +.l.c: :J :1 C 4-l p-'(I)O-lp:jCQOO " o '" '" -rl E E +-':> :> "'.-;.-; " 0 0 :>>> o . . >, >, >, '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 '" '" '" a> a> a> a> " a> a> a> a> a> a> a> a> a> " a> a> a> a> a> " a> a> " " " 0 0 0 '" '" '" " " " 0 0 0 +-> +-> +-> u u u 0 0 "' "' '" 0 "' 0 0 0 "' 0 0 "' '" 0 0 0 "' 0 '" 0 0 a> '" '" '" '" a> r-- rl '" N '" '" N '" '" 0) 0) N r-- N '" '" '" r-- '" ~ ~ "' "' ~ ~ '" ~ '" a> '" r-- ~ '" ~ CO ~ "' " " 0 " 0 0 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" 00 0 0 0 rl '" 0 0 0 0 0 H H H rl " Co . " " " Q) Q) '" '" Q) ~ ~ O'.c ~ 0 0 C +-> 0 ~ N '" '" 0.0 ~ '" r-- 0 "' 0) '" N o.~ 0 0 ~ '" .n C o.r-- N "' "' '" r-- Q)a> r-- "' rl '" '" rl rl CO Q)a> '" '" '" rl +-> 0 Q)rl 0) rl 0) rl "'rl rl N ~ rl rl 0) rl '" '" rl rl rl '" 8 "'~ rl " 0 " 0 0 " 0 0 U rl rl 0 '" '" '" +-> rl'" u '" +-> '" 0 " u C " C 0 0 +-> 0 -n 0' U -n +-> C '" Q) +-> +-> '" 0. -n .c +-> '" rl .c '" 8'" " +-> .n " "'+-> 0 "0 rl C .c ".c C 0. '" - .n 0 U 0 0.0 -n '" '" '" " 8 '" " '" 8 " Q) C " '" +-> m ~ '" '" "'''' 0' 0 0 0. U rl '" +-> 0' '" W .c: .n '" ~ 0 Q) '" '" "" Q) ~ Q) '" .", +-> a> '" '" 0 '" -n '" -n '" N 0' '" ~ U 0. .. rl " ~ -~ <U rl rl <U +-> <U C " Q) '" 8N 0 '" Q) +-> 0) .c C '" .", .c '" .c: '" -n Q) "m " +-> .", " 0 '" '" 0 .n " '" 0 '" C .", '" N "" '" Q) '" 0 u '" " Q) .c .0 -n " 0 .0 U .0 0 U '" 0 0 '" '" '" .c E-< '" " +-> 0 " '" +-> " +-> +-> +-> '" " " -n " Q) 0 H " '" "'+-> 2 " " ~ H +-> '" C Ul '" '" ~ Ul rl Ul +-> " 0 Q) .c ~ :> E-<E-< Q) '" '" .c 0 " " Q) C '" '" '" 0) E-< 0 " "" 0'," 0 8-0 " C '" 8 " " " 8 -n " " ~ ~ ~ rl " Q) Q) '" C 8 >'>'0..(1) " 0 0 0 C 0. '" " 0 " 0 " >, '" " " 0 .n H rl '" '" '" -n H '" U H rl "" +-> H -n H "'''" +-> "" 0 +-> '" .........-.-1...-1 ~ " 0 '" Q) " ~ ~ " .~ 0 '" 0 '" O'C , " " 0 u " C ~ tJ'IE--4 E-<.......... '" "-' ~ +-> 0 .c.c 0',", '" m " 0'''-' " C Q) Q) O'Q) m " Q) " +-> Q) Q) .c C H " '" ~ +-> '" O'O'W " Q) C '" -n 8 +-> WE-< '" '-' '" rl ~ 8 0' -n H " 0 l'J " C " Q) '" H -rl.,-j H Q) rl.c -n " C Q) " 0. Q) '" rl Q) -n Q) '" '" 0. -n '" .c Q) Q) '-' '" 0 E-< 8 ~ Q) "'''' " Q) 0. '" U " '" 0 >< rl -n " Q) " .c "'><.c ><.c," -n '" " '" .0.0 u Q) Q) .~ 0. Q) "''' Q).o '" C C rl (1)-..1......... -n " Q) U C Q) O'C' U, 0. " Q) Q) " .0.0 '" '-' >< '-'.", -n 0. 0 '" "" "-' .c.o H tJoQ) ..-I)-l +J..r:: " O'o.~ '" .c " tJo.c H.c '" Q) 0' 0."-' ~ " " " " -n , '" 0 " >,x l--l1.l-l4-l+J " U -n " ::S.........rQ+J mw >'0 " '-' o .r-! .j..J ':;:;+Jf'l;..Q W >,"-' '" U 0:0: E-< Ul .c " " O'E-< Wt9000O::: Ul UlE-< m.c ~ C E-<U UO!I:{/) C C E-<O '" '-' " HW +-> " 0 Q) " 0 Q) 0 Q) 0" C OE-< CO2 '" '" 2 '" 2 '" +-> '" 0 " 0 <U 0 <U <U 0 N 2 N " '" 0) 2 0) +-> .co: +-> .c +-> .c '" 0: .--IN.---Irl '" 0 N.-l (\J'<;f' (\j......-fNNN " '" I rlNNrlN " '" " '" Q) I rl 0) Q) +-> Q) 00: Q) " Q) '" .0"-' '" .0 <U .0 " "-' '" " '" 0: I 0 '" ~ '" +-> ,,"-' 0 +-> " +-> " U "-' 0 <U '" '" I "-' Z '" '" <U Ul UlO Z Ul Ul Ul Ul '" 0 z . .c '-' .c C"-' .c '-' .c '" Ul '" 00 '" <IJ '" 0000 co co co co 0000 MMNm U"l "<:I' CO "<:I' 0000 ..-i "<:I'm r- ..-i ..-i rl M ..-i ..-i rl "<:I' +-> <:: " " P. -rl ;:l 0' "' +-> <:: " " 0. -rl '" ~ -0 0' '-'"' '" o '" '" <:: -rl .-< U '" '" <::4-< ",,-, -rl ;:l (J)(J) '" ",,-, " " -rl.-< ~.-< '" 0 '"'" L!)NN..-i OE-< .-<(J) :8::> ,"0 E-< (J) 0::> .-<" :8'" '"X "' H 0" .-<E-< :80 '"E-< >, '" -0 ---- '" .0 rl o "' E-< " o H E-< H '" (J) "' E-< ~ H E-< CfJ "' Z o H (J) (J) H :8 "' Z o H E-< U ::> '" E-< (J) Z o u MO..-i..-iU"l I..DOOOI..D 00000 MU"lOCO 0000 "<:1'00"<:1' MMI..D..-iM l..Oooor- 0"<:1'00"<:1' N o (J) <'") 0 <<l 000 000 o u roooro N"<:I'U"l..-i MONI..D 00 00 x o z CO("")"<:I' U"l ro "<:I' N U"') OONOrl 00 '" o o '" "<:I' ..-i rl I..D "<:I'rl..-i\.O ..-iOO..-i .-< .-< '" <:: o -rl '" '" -..! " "' <:: o -rl ...., >, -rl '" .-<.-< -0 o Q)......-I .......... 8 +J fJl Q) Ul 1< <ll U} <ll U} U} .Q 1< (] ;:l.ri <ll 0........-1 <ll1< (] (]..-I..-I 01..0 0S-48 ~grl~~-oE-\~ ON ..-10 ({j S-4....-I U) <ll -1J 0:: 0 (!) X 1< Ul..-1 I 0:: ~ rU 1< rtl tJ'l4-1 I S-4::E 1< ..c ;:l 4-1 C 0 o...~OOS '" " o -rl '" '" .rl " "' '" <:: .rl "d '" '-' o " +->...., -rl '" (J) ~ o " N ~ -rl " +-> "'-rl '" '" .r:: ~ '""' <<l 00 .-< '" <<l 00 .-< '" :8 '" .-< .-< N .-< en o o "' N ---- 00 ".-< "'---- "'00 ,"0 oeNU"') 000 co OOOri '" "<:I'..-i 0 U"') 0'1000'1 ..-i OO..-i .-< .-< "<:I'..-iNO 0'10000 ..-iOOM .-< "' .-< 0'-< 000 000 ..-im..-i..-i r-or-I.!") 1..0 0 ..-i co <<l <<l <<l <<l ("")Nl..Orl ("") "<:I' 0 en NOON 00 00 N N I..ONr0..-i r-O..-iO'l rlOO..-i '" '" >, '" .-< -0 ".-< ---- "''' '" <ll U) U) .Q ..-1 Q) o......-l (] .ri.ri 0'-' " -g E-\ ~ o -rl '" X I '" 4-< :8 4-< o -0 '" '-' o " "'-" I '-' <:: 0 0", 0", ON 00 I""-N 00 '" 0 1""-1""- ON '" 0 om "'0 N'-< '" N N ?""- m '" .-<0 m e o o o 000Lf) OOON 0000 o o o 0000'1 0000 000 "<:I' o o 000"<:1' OOOM o 000 "<:I' o o o o o 000 000 000 o o o o o OOCO 0000'1 000(") .-< .-< . o o 0000'1 00000 o aeON '" "<:1'0000000(") (")l..Doooooom N.....-lOOOOOQM .-< .-< .-< "'.-< '" '" S-4 Q) (j) U} OJ .ri OJ 0. ~ 0..-1...-1 S-4 (] H :>, o -0 E-i (lj 8: U) rU "0 -0 ru 0 ru S-4.......... U} U) 19 0:: 0 Q) U) trl trl I I 0:: ~...o C C 4-; 4-; 1 \.-l.....-l +J -1J..-I .ri 4-; 4-1 c: 0 UlU)+J+JOOOS8 c: C rU rU ;:l MOO 0 0 +J +J -1J +J e U U U U.....-l,....j,....j,....j..-I OJ rU ({j rU m X U)O'oO'o...c::...c::...c::...c::...c::...c::rU rtllJlJ U U 0..0..0.0..:8 ...c:: ......-I .....-l S-4 S-4 Ul Ul fJl fJl o...OOl:O.<r;o<t:o<t:.<r;o<t:.<r; <:: o -rl +-> U ~.-< '-' Q) +J Ul '" " " -rl 00 U '" P. -rl '" '-' '" "dE-<0 "''" I c: 0 S-44-1 .ri 0::; OJ 4-1 '"d1~O .-< 4-< '-' ...-14-1 0 ~O"' '" '" P. ...! '-' E-< e e . . '" ro .-< ~ '" 0) .-< .-< o ro 0") '" 0") o o .-< '" 00 0") 0") .-< ro N 00 N .-< 0) .-< ~ "' Q) "' '" .c 0. .-< .-< '" >, '" " , "' .0 .-< ~ '" '" 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 "' " o -rl "' "' -rl E: W c o -rl -W -rl .-< o E: < Q) < Cl < r-- o 0'-< N >, '" .-< " Q)'-< , .j...J (f) Q) (f) U)Q){J){J).Q :1.,-j Q) 0........-1 Cl Cl .rl -rl Cl ... E: Q) "0 E--o:::l :> ro "0 S ...-1 0 n:l l--l...-I Q) .j...J cr; 0 (lJ >:: -1< (f).rl I cr; ~ n::l "' ro tJl4-1 I :....J:E -l< ..r:: :::l 4-1 ~ 0 P-.k.003 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 "' C o -rl "' "' -rl " W '" " -rl " '" ... t'J >, '" .-< " QJ Q)rl ......... .j...J .j...J U) (() (f) -r-! (f) OJ U) (f)..Q tfJ :::l.rl ill o........-! OO..--I.r! Cl... " E-< ~ " ... -rl Q) X -" '" ... '" o "' Q)"O N :> III '0 .rl 0 It! <Ii .j...J pc; 0 U} -..-I I cG m tJl4-l I ..r:: :::l 4-1 C P-oi:LoOO 0'" ON 00 ON r--O 0")0 or-- r--N 0")0 o o o O")N 0") 00 ",0) 0).-< N N NO) roo ro o o o 0001..1") GOON 0000 o o DOON aoar-- 000['") o o o o ooor- 0000\ 000('1) o o 000 000 000 o o o 000"'" OOOri o 0001..l") .-< .-< o o o 000 <;to aoari 000 O'l ro o:rOOOOOOOON rr)-.;;f'OOOOOOCl) Nr-1C)OOOOO(Y) .-< .-< c o -rl -W o ~.-< ~ Q) -W "' "' Q)", C::..., 0.. o Cl -..-I (f) U H oj >-J UE-t\!)<D 0'0 m 1...'><: c:: 0 j....j 4-1 >-l .rl P::; Q) 4-1 0 "O1~03 .-<4-<'" ...-/4-1 0 ~O"' '" "' 0. -rl ... E-< .-< Q)'-< "' Q) Q) "' -rl Q) Cl-rl Cl "0 "'''''' '" 0 '" (f)(j)l'JP::;O tJ'Ib'l1 I P::; C:C4-l4-l1 .j...J .j...J...-/.,....f 4-1 4-1 c: (f)U).j...J.j...JOOO c: c: ro nj (") 0 0 0 0 UUUU "' 0. -rl ... >, E-< '" "0 ..., Q) "' -".0 ....-< o "' E: ~ .j...J .j...J .j...J .j...J S rlrlrl..-j...-I Q) ro m m m X U) tJl tJl...c...c..r::...c..r::..c r1j mU"OUUo..o..o..o..:E ..r:: rl rl H H u) U) U) U) o...o::lOOO::C:,::(~f't";,::(f'i; '" N o N r-- 0") r-- 0) 0") o o o ~ .-< '" .-< .-< ~ .-< 0) ro N 00 0") .-< "' Q) "' '" .c 0. .-< .-< '" >, '" "0 , "' .0 .-< X '" '" 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 '" ~ o -rl "' '" -rl " W " o -rl -W -rl .-< .-< o Q)'-< E: -W CI) Q) -!< Q) CI) Q) CI) -!< Cl :;-..-1 Q) -!< Cl Cl-..-I ro Cl o o N >, '" "0 , "' "'.0 0..-< -rl ... E: E-< ~ " .rl " '" '" Q)"O .-< " '" -rl 0 Q) -W '" -!< CI)-..-I r -!< (1j tJ'l4-1 -!< ..c:::I4-I '""'0 "0 '" ... o Q) "'-" I ... C 0 0", o o o o o o "' C o -rl "' "' -rl E: W '" C -rl "0 '" ... t'J Q) -W-W -rl '" Ul ~ Cl Q) N" .rl Q) -W ",-rl '" '" .c ~ '"'" 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 :>, '" rl '0 Q) rl ' '" Q) '" Ql(fl(fl..Q ..-1 Ql o.,........j Cl .rl .rl 0" " E-< " " -rl X oj :E '0 oj'O o oj " '" 0 Q) ''''''' 4-< , " 4-< " 0 00"' 0", ON 00 <<>N MO M 0 <<>r- MN MO r-r- <<> ~ r- 00 '" rl <<> "' "' 00 ~ 0 00 o o o o o o 000 Lil OOON 0000 o o o 00000 000f'"! 000f'"! o o 00 Of'"! 000\..0 000(1') o o o o 000 000 000 o o o 000<::7' OOOri 0001..0 rl rl o o o aOOri 000q< OOOLil 00 --rI..OOOOOOOO f'"!(1')000000r- NriOOOOOO{"') rl rl rl <Drl '" Q) j....j Q) Ul Ul Ql .rl <ll 0. ...'><: Cl .rl .rl j....j CI k >t o "0 E-i rtl 8:: (fl f1:l"O "0 1\10relk........ (fl (fl t9 pc; 0 Ql (fl bl bl I I PC;...'><:..Q C C 4-l 4-1 I k.......; .j..J .j..J .rl .rl 4-1 4-1 >=: 0 (flU).j..J.j..JOOO8:: C C rei rei (1') 0 0 0 0 UUUU " o -rl +' <) "rl " Q) +' '" "' Q) " -rl 00 U '0 "'''' CO" .rl pc; Ql '0'''' rl4-<" '..-14-1 0 "0"' "' '" " .rl '" " '" E-<l'J , 4-< 4-< o '" 0. .M " E-< " " .j..J.j..J.j..J.j..J E: rlrlrl.....-l...-I Ql rtl rtl rtl rei X (flt:Jlt:Jl.c...c:...c:...c:...c:...c:reI rtl'O'OOOo.o.o.a..~ ~ rl rl k j....j U) Ul (fl (fl 0... COCO F'4,::t:,::t: F'4 F'4,::t: "' N o 00 M M M <<> M o o o ~ rl <<> rl rl rl ~ "' 00 o r- M rl '" Q) "' '" -" 0. rl rl '" :>, '" '0 , '" .0 rl X oj :E :E '" rl rl < < < '" o o N N rl "' o o <<>N , 00 Q)rl "" "'00 ,"0 < < < 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 '" " o -M '" '" .M " "' " o -rl +' -M rl rl o Q) rl E.j..J (fl Ql <1l (fl Ql (fl o ::J...-I <ll 00-..-1 o :>, '" '0 , '" "'.0 o.rl -M " " E-< " " -M X oj :E Q)'O rl ~ rei "0 ...-1 0 rtl k Ql .j..J 0:: 0 Q) (fl...-I 1 PC;...'><: rei b' 4-1 I j....j ..c ;:J 4-1 C 0 C4~OO8:: 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 '" " o .M '" '" -M " r.1 '" " -M '0 oj " l'J :>, '" '0 rl , Q) '" '" '" .0 Q) 0. rl .rl ...-1 0" " '0 E-< @ rtl k...-I o Q) X "''''''' , ":E " 0 0"' rl Q) Q) +' +' '" ...-1 (fl Ql U) ;:J..-I 00 Q)'O N ~ '" -M 0 Q)+'''' (fl...-I I '" "'4-< -"" 4-< '""'0 e e " o -M +' <) " " +-l '" " o U '" " -M '0 rl -M " "' M Q) "' oj -" '" e . . . 0"' ON 00 o o o OOOlD aOON 0000 ON ""0 cry 0 o o o 000"1 OOOr-! 000(') or- ...,N cry 0 o o ooor- ooo{") OOO(Y) o o o o o o o 000 000 000 o cry ..., 0 o o o 000(") 000 r-i or- 0..., ..., ODOr- ..., ..., N ro "'r- OO ro o o 0000 ooor- OOOr-! ro o <:t'<:t'OOOOOOW (Y)C\lOODDDOLf) NrlOOOOOO0') ..., ..., ..., m '" 0. m -rl OJ t/} l--l rl -..-I P.. E-t Ql rl 0-..-1 t/} Ul W H ru H Ql Ul Ul 1:l E-t t9 OJ ...-1 OJ 0.. n:I I ~ 0 -..-I.'" o l--l4-1 \....l 0 !-.I >. 0::; Ql 4-1 0 "0 E-t Ii:! I ...'><: 0 ~ ({J ro '0 'tj 4-1 H ro 0 ro H , 4-IQUlUl\.9O::;OQ)U) 08: tyl tyl I I O:::;..Y:..Q ~ s:: 4-l 4--1 I \.-l.....-i .jJ ~...-I...-I 4-1 4-1 c: 0 (J)U).j..J+JOOO8=E c c ro ro ~ o 0 0 0 .j.J .j.J .j.J .j.J E UUUUrlrlrlrl.rl ro ro (lj (lj X tJ1 tyl...c:...c:...c: ...c:..c:...c: ro '"O'"Oouo.o.o..o.::E: rl .-l H H (j) Ul Ul lfl "'"''''' """" "' N o N ..., cry r- cry cry o o o cry ..., r- ..., ..., o r- ..., ro ro "' cry ..., m '" m m "' 0. rl ..., m ,., m -0 ----- m 00 rl " m :;:: 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 m c o -rl m m -rl ~ "' c o -rl .w -rl rl rl o '" rl E +-I t/} QJ aJ Ul W Ul o ;:j.rl QJ Cl o.,-j o "'-0 > m -0 -..-I 0 ro l-I ill oW P::; 0 OJ -1< Ul-.-j I P::;..Y: -1< ro 0'14-1 I H -1< ..c: ;:j 4-1 C 0 D..![L,003 . . . o rl o rl N ,., m -0 ----- m moO o.rl -rl " ~ E-< " ~ -rl " m :;:: 00000 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000 00000 00000 00000 000 000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 m C o -rl m m -rl ~ "' '" C -rl -0 m " l'J ,., m rl -0 Q) Q) rl ......... .j..J .j.J U) QJ U) .rl U) Q) Ul Ul..Q UJ;:j.r!WQ.rl Cl 0: .rl -.-I o " ~ E-< " ~ -rl " m :;:: "'-0 N :> ru""O ...-1 0 ro H Q.l .jJ p::; 0 ill (1)-,-1 I 0:;":': lt\ 0"14-/ I H ..c: ;::l 4-1 s:: 0 p..r....003 0", ON 00 ~ N ro 0 NO ~r- roN NO ~ r- ~'" N "' 0..., ..., rlN r- r- r-o r- o o o "' N o CONN 000 Lf) 0000 N o o (Y)'<!'OU"') r-OOI.O "<t'oor- r- N o (Y)'<t'Nr- r-OO.-l <::rOOOO o o o 000 000 000 r- '" "' ..., r-\.OO'IO rl (") rl Lll NO rl r- ro ..., ..., cry N r- o OOOOLll\.O <:1' r- 0"<1' LllrlOl..O cry ..., ..., N N rl rl <:1'(")0 (") 0"<1'0 O'Irl (")rlr-rl\.OOOrlOO'l \.OrlOrlOQ(") ro N N rl N c o -rl .w o "rl " '" .w m m '" " -rl 00 U -0 "'''' C 0 -rl cG -01 rl"-' .rl "-' "0 "' m 0. -rl " E-< U} Q, -rl " E-< m m " l'J '" 1-'" "-' " "-' 0 0;;' N "' o "' '" r- r- ..., ro o o o o "' r- ..., cry '" ~ '" ..., N ..., '" cry N N m '" m '" "' 0. rl rl m ,., '" -0 ----- m 00 rl " m :;:: . >, >, '" '" 0 0 --...0 0 0 0 --"'0 0 0 0 0 '" '" ~ 00 00 00 00 ~ 00 00 00 00 00 ~ ~ 0 0 '" '" >, '"" -'" 0 -~ ~ ~ ~ 0' 0 0 +-> +-> '" 0 0 '" dP dP "" '" 0 0 "' "' '" 0 "' 0 0 0 OJ 0 0 "" 0 '" 00 m '" '" '" 00 r-- '"" m N ~ '" r-- '" " " "' '" " " '" '" '" " 0 "0 "0 '"" '" m "' '" 0 0 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0 0 "0 >, 0 0 OJ 0 '"" 0 0 0 .., .., .0 '"" -~ '"" '"" '"" I-< '" "'''' '" '" ~ '" "0'" '" '" +-> e '" dP X dP "" "" I-< I-< -M 0 N 0 "'0 >'0 OJ OJ "0 0. '"" 3 3 0 0 1-<0 .~ 0 0 0 " '" '" 0." N '" m 0.0 " '" r-- 0 -M N '" N +-> N "0 N OJ'" "' '" r-- "00 r-- "' '"" m 0 OJ 0 0 0 "''"" '" '"" "''"" '"" N " '"" I-< Ul 0 Ul -" Ul X Ul I-< ~ OJ '" +-' N 0 0 :> dP ..... "" .M "" "" '" '" 0 0 " 0 " 0 '" 0 0 ~ "0 0 '" 0 '" 0 "'0 "0 " 0 " 0 "00 ,""0 I-< 0 0 '" ~ U OJU -~ U U 0 0 " 0 '" 0. ,., 0 0 " I-<dP OdP "" ~ "" " "' ~ ,"0 0.0 -'" 0 '" 0 '" "' ,., '" '" X 0 -" 0 0 '" OJ 0 " 0 0 0 0 0. OJ 0 +-> ,., -~ '" '" '" '" X I-< X '" X ,., X " +-' +-' ~ " " ~ "'0 OJ 0 0 '" 0 '" '" OJ OJ 0' 0 0 0. " o.Z +-> Z '"" Z Z " '"' OJ OJ "' -" -~ '" 0 OJ '" '"" ~ 0 .......... " ",-", +-' 00 '" -~ '" "" "' de '" "" OJ"" -~ 00 '" '" I-< 0 0." ,., ~ +-> 0 0 0 +-' 0 +->'"" l) 0 " I-< " '" 6N 0 '" '" I-< '" !t .~ .~ -~ OJ "0<0 ~ +-' -'" '" OJ 0 OJ 0 OJ 0 "' 0 OJ '" .0.0 '" N "'--... '" OJ '" 0 0 -M l) l) :> ~ "'-" ~ ~E-< '" 0 0 '" '" '" -" E-< '" ~ +-' '"' Cl'J Cl'J Ol'J l'J 11l III '"' 0 O:E <ll 0 H \.< '" III '"' :E \.< \.< C -~ '" 0 "'0 uo '" 0 "'-" c--:> l) OJ -" " > E-<E-< OJ '" ..oo:::..ocr:: 0:"0 0: "'''' 0 0"0 "0"0 "'''' 0 6 ~-~ -'" 6 M >, I-< <ll OJ '" C 6 >'>'0. "0 ~ " ~ " '" " 0 " " I-< '" ,.,,., '" I-< I-< 0 -~ I-< '"" '" '" '" -~ OJ +-' 0'"' 0 OJ Do: 0 0 0 "' +-' -~ OJ --... .~ '" -~ eO "0 0 '" " I-< " " ~ '"' '" -~ '" -~ '"" -~ -~ -~ ..... 0 '" :> +-' ,"E-< '" E-<--... '" ..... :> +-> 0 -"-" 0' '" ..-1 +-1..-\ +J .~ +-' "O+-' +-' E-< 0 '" " " I-< I-< '" " +-' '" '" '" "' ,., 0 00 0 0.0 OJ 0 -~ I-< " ~ OJ -~ I-< ,., I-< 0 l'J I-< " I-< OJ '" I-< ...-1...-1 " ~ ~."< ~ :> ~ ,., '" 0 " " E-< 6 -" " ,., " +-> '" 0 E-< 6 :> " "'''' " '" '"" "0 ,., "0 0"0 "'"0 0 OJ -~ 6 6 0. OJ "'.0 .0 0 OJ OJ -~ 0. OJ "'"0 OJ I .~ OJ -~ OJ 0 OJ 0. OJ 6," +-' ~ ~ ."< .~ o.~.o N .0 '" +-,," +-'-'" -~ 0.0 '" ..... ..... -" " 0 '" 0 "'+-'''' "'" ,,--... "',.,,., l) ~ >,~ ~ ,., ~ ~ -~ --... '" 0 ~ >'X 1-l4-l4-l-W 0 Ul Ul Ul ::> 0-" I-< 0 0 ~ 0' E-i U P:; '" E-< Ul-" I-< ~ tJ'E-tWl.'.lOOO -~ +-' +-> +-> +-> +-' ~>> I-< "' "' +-' ~ I-< "' +-' " " " " " 0 E-< 0 " OE-< 0 N " N " N OJ N OJ 0 '"'" "0 0 0 "0 ~ 0 l) l) 0 ,., '" '"" " ""0 '" r-- N N '" N "0 '" I-< OJ I-< OJ I-< OJ I-< OJ I-< -.-1-..-1 '" 0 ,.,N --... ,., ,., '" 0 NrlNo:;r<N +-' '" " '" " '" " '" " " +-' OJ "0"0 0'" "00 " +-' " 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" I-< '" '"",.,'" I 0 ",., '" " '" 0: I 0 " -" -" -" -" '" '" m .,-1 -.-I I ..... Z "'--... '" '" '" I ..... Z 0 '" '" '" '" -" +-' -" ~ ~ "..... "'00 -" +-' -" "..... . u '" Ul 0..000000 "'0 '" Ul '" 00 . >, >, '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 '-0 0 0 0 0 '-0 0 0 0 0 0 '" '" 00 00 00 00 ~ 00 00 00 00 00 ~ 00 00 00 00 00 00 " " 0.-< 0 0 '-<0 '" '" :;; ,"0 ~ ~ 0 0 .., .., N 0 U U -0 "' 0 0 "' '" 0 0 0 "' 0 '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 "dUJ '" '" N 0\ "' '" '" N r-- N "' 0\ 0\ '" '" N 0\ <ll '" '" 00 '" r-- '" '" '" 00 '" "' "' '" 00 '" .., "d 0 "d '" 0 0 0 0 '" 0 00 0 0 .-< '" 0 0 0 0 00 '" 0 0 -cJ H H .., rl .cJ " ,,0 r-- C, "U .-< 0> . ~ ~ '" <ll '" '" <ll ~ b>", ~ >, 0 " .., 0 '" "' '" 0\ N "'''' 0 0 '" 0\ -cJ " ",r-- N .-< .,. 0\ r-- 0 "'.-< rl 00 <lloo 0\ 0\ 0\ .-< .., 0 <ll.-< '" rl .-< .-< '" .-<'" rl '" '" .-< .-< .-< '" " "'''' .-< .-< .-< .-< '" ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ <ll " r-- 0 U .-< .-< 0 "'0 r-- '" '" Z .., rl "' '" co U '" .., "d '" 0 ~ U " " " "0 " 0 .., 0 0 -cJ '" U -cJ '" .., " '" <ll .., .., '" '" -cJ -" .., "'rl -" ~ '" r-- "", "d .., .cJ ~ "'.., <ll 0 N "0 rl " -" ,,-" " ~ '" '" - -cJ 0 U 0 g.~ 0 '" " " '" ~ " '" .., ro 3 '" '" "'''' UJ U .-< '" .., '" '" "0 <ll "' <fJ "-' <ll " " <fJ 0 '" -cJ <fJ .cJ <fJ N Ul ~ -cJ .. '" rl rl '" .., '" .., Ol <ll ..,CO -" " '" -" -" "'-" '" " E-< "d U '" '" 0 -cJ ~ '" 0'" " -" <ll '" '" " <ll ...c: .0 -..-I ~ 0 .0 U.Q 0 U .., " :;; 0 ~ '" .., ".., .., .., "' " " -cJ " " '" H H .., '" " Ul '" <fJ " Ul rl Ul .., ~ <ll -cJ E-< '" <fJ -" 0 ~ " <ll " <fJ '" '" co E-< " '" " UJ "d "d " '" " ~ " "d " -cJ "d ~ ~ ~ ~ .-< '" "d " Ol <ll ~ 0 0 0 " '" '" '" 0 " 0 " >, -cJ '" Ol ~ '" U ~ .-< "-' .., H -cJ '" '" "-' ..,"-' 0 .., '" " '" Z -cJ 0 '" 0 "' "''' '- " '" 0 U "d " 3 " 0 '" :;; 0 E-< '" ro '" "'''-' '" " <ll Q) "<ll ro ~ <ll ~ .., <ll <ll -" Ol ro " '" H ~ <ll " '" -cJ " .., OlE-< '" .., '" rl > " '" '" -cJ Ul ~ " rl -" -cJ ~ " <ll "d '" <ll '" rl <ll -cJ <ll '" '" '" -cJ '" '" '" rl U .-< Ul <ll "'''' U -0 '" 0>< '-<-cJ ~ <ll ~ -" ro:>-t...c::>i,..Co... -cJ '" ~ " <ll '" '" .-< H .0 '" " " rl <ll -cJ'- -cJ " <ll U " <ll 0'1 ~......... 0......... 0.. " <ll <ll -cJ rl ,,"-' :;; .0 ~ "'ill -cJ >< ..,-" " ""''' '" -" " "'-" ~-" <fJ <ll " '" "-' > > rl "'~ N Ol " U .rl ~ ,,'- '" .., ro Ol >'0 ~.., o -rl .wF1.;.\J,.:(.o Ol >,"-' '" '" 0 -cJ " .-< '" '" UlUlE-< ro-" ~ " E-<UUOO:::U1 " " E-<O '" '" '" UJ UJ Ol '" .., " 0 <ll "d 0 <ll 0 <ll 0 -0 "' U Q) '" " 0:;; '" '" :;; <fJ :;; <fJ .., '" 0 '" U 0 '" 0 '" '" 0 0 0> ~ rl co :;; co .., -"'" .., -" .., -" '" '" 00 N 0 " '" rlNC\lN ~ '" I rlNNrlN ~ '" ~ '" <ll I rlr0LClNNrl '- UJ 0 ~ <ll .., <ll '" .0"-' '" .0 '" .0 ~ "-' .. 00 UJ " '" ~ '" .., ,,"-' 0 .., " .., " U "-' 0 <llrl '" .., '" '" '" UJ UlO Z Ul Ul Ul UJ '" 0 Z "''- Ol '" . -" .., -" "'00 '" Z '" Ul '" ,"0 '" e rl '" " r-- rl C') '" 0. "' C') '" N 0 rl .w.rl 0 0 0 " '" rl '" C') 0 '" 0 '" '"'" 0 r-- r--CD 0 0 rl " '" N r-- rl ",C') :E '" 0 N C') "' r-- N rl "' r-- N rl '" rl '" 0 CD .w 0 rl -rl 0 0 0 " '" '" 0 0 z:> "' 0 "'"0 N "' rl CD rl " o.<!) 0 0 0 C') "' '" -rl rl UJ " <!) 0 0 0 '" " '" '" 0. rl " -rl '" '" " .w .w .w CD C') .w 4-< 4-< 0 '" N " " '" <!) 0 N '" 0 rl <!) rl e rl " U CD N '" '" ~ tJ'tJ' 4-<-rl " '" '" O:E "' " '" " " CD r-- C') <!) UJ 0 0 "' <!) " CD rl .w 0 0 " rl UJ " 0 0 UJ 0 Z rl .rl " rl rl -rl N '" 0 0 .......... -" 0 r-- H " '" '" '" <!) UJ X "' " '" 0 ro <!) 0.0. > 0 C') U) 0 rl U"> CD 4-< '" .w -.-j-,-j H Z '" UJ '" " " rl :E '" "' " o..w a: .w+-l '" OJ C') "' '" -rl c: .w H <!) 0. C') r-- 0 H .w "' UJ "' .rl rl "' '" '" .w OJ '" " '" 0 ""' '" Z "'''' '" '" CD r-- rl 0 '" C') 0 .0 " ~ C') rl H '" C') 0 C') "'.n 0 0 r-- '" '" 0 N "' e- "'"0 H "-' ;;i a: '" '" '" " rl "' 0. UJ <!) OJ C') "' '" '" OJ <!) N '" '" " c: " 0 '" 0 0 -rl Z " 0 <!) '" 4-< .w 0 .w N " c: 0 c: H '" ..... 0 0 "0 OJ " " UJ " '" '" -rl <!) '" 0 0 UJ '" '" .w '" -rl 0 H @: (j) '" 19 >, +-l :E N -rl '" '" H '" '" 0 <!) OJ <!) 0 '" " "'-rl E-< c: "0 '" rl E-< 0 c: <!) ".w H -rl ..... " .0 N .rl .rl.rl :E "0 '" " " <!) U '" "0 " .w "' :E Z rl .0 0 0 rl 0 r;: <!) rl <!) '" c: '" :::> -rl rl 0"0 0 rl '" -rl ~ 0 " " -rl 0 :E :::> " '" U rl .0 <!) '" -" N OJ .0 " .w '" rl UJ "0"0 <!) "0 '" 0 rl '" <!) Z " " > c: <!) "0 "'"0 N 0 0 rl rl " " '" 0 0 "''' "..... rl -rl H 0 0 '" 0 H -rl Z " '" " '" 4-< UJ " " H <!) -rl 4-< -rl .w.o "' 4-< UJ .rl.rl '" >< '" 4-< 4-< 0. " Orl 0 0 H Z " 0 <!) 0 '" <!) '" 0 rl :E .w .w 0 '" <!) 0. rl .c: 0 "' .w UJ '" N rl '" OJ 0 0 H -rl > '" '" rl '" .w '" " -rl H ..... '" .w " " E-< '" " E-< '" .w " "0 '" -" '" u'" 0 -rl H ;;i '" U '" 0 -rl '" " " 0 E-< <!)rl -rl 0. '" '" '" rl '" ~ .w -rl 0. <!) '" 0 " 0 "'..... "0 '" E-< <!) <!) OJ '" "-' -rl "0 '" '" H U '" E-< "'''' <!) 0 0 0 0 '" " :E " " <!) 0 e ,"0 :E '" E-< 0 0 0 '" OJ UJ :::> :E '" e M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QJ N 0 e- e- N "" '" '" 0 0 0 0 N k "' "' 0 "' "' '" QJ QJ 0 N 0 N m "" 0 m '" 0 0 0 e- ~ "' "' 0 '" N -rl M "" m m 0 "' '" 0 " m '" Cl M M +' '" " U M '" '" -rl k "' "' 0 en en U 0 k " en en 0 "" N QJ I " M +' ~ " "'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >,e- 0 M '" m e- O M 0 0 N 0 e- O Z '" M U QJ '" m '" m en M '" 0 M 0 0 M 0 en '" +' '" '" '" '" m '" N M en "" m QJ '" '" +' "" "" 0 0 0 +' U ~ " 0 0 0 e- en QJ M M " N U 0 k . U QJ '" +' '" 0. >, I k -rl " M QJ QJ 0 0 0 0 k 0 '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ .c: E-< -rl +' M 0 N " 0 0 0 0 0 0 m '" M 0 +' '" '" 0 "" +' '" '" 0 " " QJ U U M N M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 e- '" " I '" ::0 k " M +' 0 '" -0 '" Z -rl " " +' I '" 0 " QJ 0.'" '" 0 0 H U QJ ~ 0 -0 0 .c: " " 0 e- k k QJ -rl '" rn " "" 0 0 0. '" QJ "-' "-' >, QJ '" E-< '" " '" '" 0 0 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QJ QJ +' r- N N "" M "" 0 '" 0 N '" M " -0 " " " I " M M QJ " en '" r- M 0 M 0 0 0 M 0 M QJ -" en en '" '" '" '" '" U en M M ~ k M ~ ~ k 0 0 M M en 0 QJ '" " M M "" N >, +' +' '" .Q M M '" 000000 '" " " .Q trlOOOOO..Q '" '" M '" '" M r-lDOOOO.....-l QJ QJ '" M '" "-' "-' - - - - MM .rl '" " QJ QJ en m 0 " "" 0 .rl.rl +' -rl -rl -0 -0 M M "" '" ~ ~ " U -0 '" 0 I I I I I I QJ k M :E QJ QJ " en M M M M M M 0 -0 QJ -rl '" .c: .c: 0 e- en en 0 0 0 0 0 '" ..c:,C--rl ~ " +' +' -rl _e- e- en 0 0 0 0 " +'+'.c: '" .Q M +' "" 0 tJlt:JIo..W 0 M 0 0 ~ "" en m 0" "" 0 -rl c: " ~ '" U QJ +' ...., V M M ""'" ...., QJ QJ- U N " QJ -rl HH -rl M QJ QJ '" 0. "'''' >,^ -0 '" "-' -0 -0 '" >,0 U U >,>, ~ QJ '" QJ c: 0. 0.-0 '" "'''-' en '" '" 0: X E-<+' " " '" ~ ~ >''''M "'M " ~ 0 .rl.rl QJ 0. 0.0 0 ~ ~ -rl " k k U '" '" ~ QJ " " U '" 0 U k k QJ -rl -rl M 0 0 QJ :E QJ 0: E-<E-< " QJ QJ "'''' '" '" >, '" E-<E-< o.k k M '" M N '" '" M M k "'''' QJ I '" UM M rnE-< E-< '" +' --.. QJ QJ U ...., U +' +'+'E-< I I '" >, " k 0 k QJ " M U -rl m '" 0> -rl QJ -rl .c:.c:.c: QJ QJ I ~ QJ '" 0 0 0 ~ '" '" 0."-' "-' -rl 0. QJM " " .c: QJ .c: tyl tyl 01 "0 +'+' -0 '" c: .Q ....,.c: +' '" .Q k -rl 0 0 -0 '" 0>--" '" '" . QJ M QJ ...-1...-1-..-1 QJ -...-I.,...J QJ QJ -rl k 0 U 0 k k " k QJ 0 ",m .c: .c: 0> '" 0> HHH:2 HH :E'" H::O :Ern :E E-< ::0 '" E-<de de :E '" ,"0 U U e >. .., '" u -~ ~ 0' m ro ill ~ ro " >. ill .., "' .~ ~ ro ~ " ..., m X -~ N m >. " 0, .., ~ -~ c ro ro .~ m ..., " Q) ~ u .c x Q) ro ..., N :> ""' -~ 0 ~ ~ m U ~ " m m ro " ill 0 C " .., ~ 0 ~ Q) -~ 0 '" 0 m 0, .., M 0 '" . ~ 0 ~ 0 ..., 0> 0, '" ro .., 0 0 X u .c 0 ..., M +-> ill (l) 0 N U +-> .., 0 0 ro ~ m .., 0 '" 1'1 '" .., (l) ro m +-> 0 0, +-> .., c ~ (l) ro .., ~ ""' 0 '" 1'1 ""' 1'1 "' S ro (l) ""' -~ 0 0 0 +-> 0 +-> 0 ~ " ~ ~ ro 0 ro N ""' (l)"", (l) Q) (l) S ro 0 .., ~ 0> U U :> (l) ..., C) Q) 1'1 " c" c c 0 ~ N 0, 0 (l) ro (l) ro ro u m ..; C 0 ~ o>.r:: 0> "' "' " 0 0 ""' C U C ~ ~ ro ~ +-> ~ ro ro ~ ~ m 0 0 1'1 0 " .r:: 1'1 .r:: ..., c +-> C (l) C "' C ""' 0 '" ""' Q) U (l) U m 0 m 0 .., 0 0 ~ C) 0> +-> -~ -~ -~ " m ""' 0 m C (l) -~ Q) Cl 0 Cl 0 0,0 Q) 0 Q) N (l) '" ~ ~ +-> +-> "'+-> :> +-> ~ " ~ .r:: ~ c ~ .., .., U '" .., (l) 1'1 .., u +-> 0 ..., -~ ""' -~ ""' 0 ""' 0,"", '" 0>0 '" '" -~ '" 0 ""' 0 ""' +-> ""' c""' :> c ~ :> ~ ~ +-> ~ Ul 0 Ul 0 Ul 0 8 0 "'""' '" Q) U Q) ..., .c ..., Q) o,(l) 0, (l) 1'1 (l) 1'1 (l) 1'1 (l) 1'1 .., u " .., >. 1'1'" 1'1 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ (l) ~ (l) (l) (l) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" .r:: 0> '" C +-> '" +-> m ""' m ""' m ""' m ""' ""' U C ""' 0 '" ro ro '" (l) +-> '" Q) -~ ~ ~ ~ (l) " (l) " (l) " (l) " " -~ .r:: " m Q) Q) (l) 1'1 (l) 1'1 Q) 1'1 (l) 1'1 (l) :< u m +-> +-> ~ 0> 0> 0> 0> (l) m (l) -~ C C C C C C C C C c .r:: ~ .r:: 1'1 -.-1-.-1 ~ 0 '" 0 '" 0 ro 0 ro ..., c ro ..., (l) :< ~ m -rl..c:: -..-to!: .rl..c::-rl..c:: 0 (l) +-> u +-> U+-> u +-> u 0 .~ >. 0 .., .., .., .., ro ro '" ro +-> +-> +-> '" '" '" '" o>C o>C o>C o>C o,(l) C C C C -~ Q) -~ Q) -~ (l) -~ Q) Q) 0 0, (l) 0 0 0 0 +-> (l) +-> (l) +-> (l)+-> (l) " '" " -~ ."';..-1 -~ ...-1 .0 ..-1 .0 .,...j ,.Q ...-1 ..0 '" .r:: u ro ..., +->..., ..., 1'1 1'1 1'1 1'1 1'1 +-> '" 1'1 '" '" '" '" m m m m ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ N ro N ro N ro N ro m ro c m Q) (l) (l) ill .r:: .r:: .r:: .r:: (l) (l) ro (l) 0..0.0.0. (l) (l) (l) (l) 0> .r:: .., 0> 0 0 0 0 '" '" m m c C ro '" '" ro ro (l) (l) ro (l) (l) (l) (l) .r:: .r:: .r:: .r:: .r:: .r::.r:: .r:: ..c::..c::..c::..c:: . p., p., p., p., U E-<E-< U E-tE-iE-tf-l . . Appendix C Noise Study . f/ .~ "'l e EN~RONMENTALNO~ESTUDY FOR THE PROPOSED TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL FACILITY IN TEMECULA Project File 734-05 September 2005 e Prepared for: PftD Consultants 800 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 Prepared by: Jonathan Higginson, Senior Associate Consultant David L. Wieland, Principal Consultant Wieland Associates, Inc. 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 114 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949/829.6722 Fax: 949/829.6670 www.wielandassoc.com . 0... A Y. Wieland Associates, Inc. F I HAL Temecula Regional Hospital Facility Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARy............................................................................ 1 2 INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................... 2 3 NOISE DESCRiPTORS.... ................... ........... ............ .............. ...... ............ 5 3.1 DECiBElS........................................................................................ 5 3.2 A-WEIGHTING................................................................................... 5 3.3 COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL).................... ............................. 7 4 NOISE CRITERIA ................................................................................... 7 4.1 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN ............................................................. 7 4.2 CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE .................................. ......................... 8 5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................ 8 6 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................ 8 6.1 NOISE MEASUREMENTS ............................................... ............. .............. 9 6.2 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES..................................................................... 10 7 FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA................................11 7.1 CONSTRUCTION ....... ........................................ ............. ....................11 7.2 PROJECT OPERATION ............................................... ............. .............. 14 7.2.1 Traffic ..... ................. ......... ... ...... ... .... .... .......... ............ 14 7.2.2 Helicopter Flights ............ .............. .......... .......... ....... ...... 16 7.2.3 Loading Dock Activities..................................................... 19 7.2.4 Mechanical Equipment ..................................................... 19 7.2.5 Parking Lot Activities....................................................... 20 7.2.6 Trash Pickups. .... ....... ...... ...... ....... .......... ... ... ... ............... 21 7.2.7 Landscaping I Maintenance... ................. ........ ..... ........ ........22 8 FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT THE PROJECT SITE....................................22 8.1 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ....................................................................... 22 8.2 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS .................... ........................................ ............ 22 9 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT........................................................................23 10 MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................23 11 ADDITIONAL NOISE ABATEMENT ...........................................................24 12 IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION ...............................................................24 paD Consultants Project File 734-05 i September 2005 . e . ... Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN A L T emecula Regional Hospital F acUity . 13 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ...................................,................................. 24 14 REFERENCES............................................................,...................... 25 List of Tables Table 6.1. Summary of Noise Measurements......................................................10 Table 6.2. Existing Traffic Noise Levels.....................................................,......11 Table 7.1. Construction Equipment Noise Levels.................................................12 Table 7.2. Estimated Combined Noise Level During Each Construction Phase ..............13 Table 7.3. Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels.................................... 14 Table 7.4. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year Without Project ...................15 Table 7.5. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels With Project Phase I ................................16 Table 7.6. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels With Project Phases I through V ..................16 Table 7.7. Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels .... .................................................. 20 Table 7.8. Analysis of Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels ........ ................................ 21 List of Figures e Figure 2.1. Project Study Area ................... ............ .................................... .... 2 Figure 2.2. Site Plan ...................................................................................4 Figure 3.1. Common Noise Sources and A.Weighted Noise Levels.............................. 6 Figure 3.2. Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations ....................... 6 Figure 6.1. Noise Measurement Locations ............................... ................... ........ 9 Figure 7.1. Helicopter Flight Noise Contours .....................................................18 List of Appendices Appendix I. Appendix II. Noise Measurements Traffic Noise Analysis . P&D Consultants Project File 734-05 ii September 2005 .... Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN A L Temecula Regional Hospital Facility 1 Executive Summary e This report identifies and assesses the potential noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Facility in the City of Temecula. The proposed hospital facility will be located on an approximately 35-acre property. One existing structure will be demolished to make way for the hospital facility; the remainder of the site is currently undeveloped. In order to identifY the existing noise environment, measurements were taken at three locations throughout the study area. The introduction of new noise sources, such as construction activities, increased traffic, and hospital facility activities will result in a change to the noise environment at properties in the vicinity of the project. Using the criteria established in this study, it may be concluded that the project will create a potentially significant impact at the nearby properties. The impact at the project site itself is not significant. The following measures are recommended to mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with the project: I. Conduct continuous 24-hour noise monitoring prior to, and immediately after, the mechanical equipment becomes operational. Implement mitigation measures, if necessary, to ensure compliance with the significance thresholds established in this report. 2. Limit helicopter flights to emergency use only. 3. Inform helicopter pilots of a preferred approach and departure route to the southeast on a heading of 1350. e 4. Limit the number of truck deliveries using the hospital loading docks four or less per day. 5. Limit loading dock activities to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 6. Require mechanical ventilation for hospital facility buildings. 7. Limit demolition and construction activities to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula municipal code. 8. Fit all construction and demolition equipment with properly sized mufflers. 9. Locate noisy construction equipment items as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. 10. If feasible and appropriate, place portable noise barriers around portions of the project site during construction. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, there will be no significant noise impacts associated with the project. paD Consultants Project File 734-05 1 . September 2005 ..... Wieland Associates, lne. . FI HAL Temecula Regional Hospital Facility 2 Introduction j Project Description The purpose of this study is to identifY and assess the potential noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Facility in the City of Temecula. Figure 2-1 identifies the location of the project site. Referring to the figure the project site is located between State Route 79 and De Portola Road, west of Margarita Road. . 79 ~ ,~ 'oi;;~ ~ ! , Figure 2-1. Project Study Area Based on information provided by P & D Consultants and a review of the study area, the land uses surrounding the project site are as follows: To the north and northwest the land uses are single family residences and undeveloped land. To the south beyond SR-79 the land uses are commercial properties and single family homes. To the west the land is currently vacant but is under development for professional office use. To the east the land uses include a flood control channel, and commercial and medical uses. There are also seven parcels between Dartola Road and De Portola Road. These parcels include three structures located on Margarita Road and two struclures located on De Portola Road. One of the structures is currently used as a medical clinic, one is a vacant single-family residence, and three are occupied single. family residences. All seven parcels are designated for Professional Office (PO) use . P&D Consultants Project File 734-05 2 September 2005 YA Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN A L Temecu!a Regional Hospital Facility within the General Plan. This zoning district is intended primarily for single-tenant and multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Typical permitted uses include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Limited supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Residential uses within the PO zone are allowed only by conditional use permit, and are limited to one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for nse of the proprietor of the business. As such, residential use of these parcels is an existing, non-conforming condition. Future development and use of these parcels are anticipated to be as professional office uses. Therefore, the assessment of impact in this study will be based upon the assumption that the seven parcels between Dartola Road and De Portola Road will contain professional office uses and no residences. The proposed hospital facility will be located on an approximately 35-acre property. One existing structure will be demolished to make way for the facility; the remainder of the site is currently undeveloped. The proposed 566,160 square foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility will be constructed in five phases, and will consist of an approximately 408,160 square foot, two tower hospital providing 320 beds; two medical buildings providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space; a 10,000 square foot cancer center; and an 8,000 square foot fituess rehabilitation center. The proposed site plan is provided in Fignre 2-2. A 60.foot by 60-foot helipad will also be located onsite near the northeast comer of the hospital. Approaches and takeoffs associated with the helipad will be oriented to the southeast. A hospital truck loading zone and mechanical yard will be located on the eastern edge of the hospital south ofthe helipad. The loading zone and mechanical yard will provide infrastructure to support the hospital such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed to the -north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project. Lighting will be placed thronghoutthe site for security. P&D ConsuLtants Project File 734-05 3 September 2005 e . . . . . Y... Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital facility F J MAL -.-~ll!!:~ ---".--; ~-- ! =::--- --....f....'~ l~~ i ==-_____ 1--' ;:::,.- ~!!::=-;;.~ I-.-~~~:~ - r _. ._-- -::.--- ~- -==- Residences ...,... Figure 2-2. Site Plan P&.DConsultants Project file 734-05 HI<S ........ - '-~ -- ~ iil.' '".':'.....~'E ~-:...-=*-~ 'i:01PH 4 September 2005 .. Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN A L Temecuta Regional Hospital Facility 3 Noise Descriptors . The following sections briefly describe the noise descriptors that will be used throughout this study: 3.1 Decibels Sound pressures can be measured in units called microPascals (l!Pa). However, expressing sound levels in terms of l!Pa would be very cumbersome since it would require a wide range of very large numbers. For this reason, sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer resolution, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dB. 3.2 A-Weighting e Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. In order to approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments, or weighting network, are frequency dependent. The A-scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. A range of noise levels associated with common in- and outdoor activities is shown in Figure 3-1. The A-weighted sound level of traffic and other long-tenn noise-producing activities within and around a community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are accomplished by recording values of the A-weighted level during representative periods within a specified portion of the day. e paD Consultants Project File 734-05 5 September 2005 . . . .~ '''ieland Associates, Inc. lbn,,'IlR>Wl,rpJ.lio T<'~lik>mjn Prinlin~pbnl hdhamln<'r~t50' P<lW>:r L:lwn mow~r ~I 5' H~~,'}' Irwkat5t:r ('()n~re1<> ml\eral 5(Y IIt>i<k car a! 40mph V~';lll1mdcaJK:rallO' Car. 6/1 mrlUI100' C:~mWI'SOJ;I<<III~lsJ".."""h Lmgl: Irnflsfom~r at 5(1 V!tanresiden.:e Sm:tIll\.',,':nn:udclli."" Sotlwh''i'<'T:l1fJ North rimofGrnnd C~Il)'''n nU'6h,)ld.)rhe:uin~ 120dB(A) Dil".'<' Illld8fA) lOOdB{Aj 9IldFM, 1\0 <lBII\) .n~M~""'"'_'" ; 111l<lBd',wl,'<' gcncr~l1) '~~~M""H"'HJ1'n"I'''d as h"K" or hall a~ ]"ud 7QdB(A) 1>0<18(,\\ ._-_HH.HHH1S,ll!chanj,'(:p.'nI:rally '_'H_'H_HHH.h~""iw,j as quill) 001,,,,,,,1>\0.- 5(ldll!A) '''H_HHH'HHH~ . 'H"_HH'HHHJ:::~~I~~r IS j;I'........lly h=Jy .:lOdB(J\) I <lH (hJIll>\' iS~""lCr:llly not '---"HHH'--HHno:lllo.'t:abl.: JO.J8(A) 20dlHAl HllIBC,\) O.JBlA) Figure 3-1. Common Noise Sources and A- Weighted Noise Levels P&DConsultants Project File 734-05 N~.'llofn.",war 1J.>S Angeles. 3/4 mi. from LAX Do\\nw"m Lo~ An~lcs fk'\Isin/!""'Il;I)"/"sln'd Lu, ~Ic" 8 mi. from U\X Illdsuhurt'l<Ulresido:nli;o!area $mullt...,"'''...1I1......'"~,. FI NAL Temecula R~lonal Hospital Fadtity 90"" "','" 70...,B J.. c.lll1mon'l,LOd<lTdl''''l1UjscClI''",urctc~",,1 ~mcxlcm'.-rc"ll<'nllalarc". bOdE SQ,ffi J.. Common """dardliJl" ""i", '-"I""'\II"C k,vcl ""'mlDlCrI<>rre>ldcnllalarea, farm """ Jo"n Figure 3-2. Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations 6 September 2005 Y... Wieland Associates, Inc. FJ HAL Temecula Regional HospitaL Facility 3.3 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) e It is recognized that a given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the duration of exposure experienced by an individual. There are numerous measures of noise exposure that consider not only the A-level variation of noise but also the duration of the disturbance. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). This measure weights the average noise levels for the evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) by 10 dB. .The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 3-2 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations. 4 Noise Criteria The following sections discuss the various noise criteria that have been considered for this study. 4.1 City of Temecula General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Temecula's General plan provides noise standards for various land uses. The following is a summary of the standards that apply to the land uses in the project vicinity: . Residential- For all multi-family residential and high-density single-family residential land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. For all other single. family residences a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Schools - For all schools, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. PubliclInstitutional (including hospitals) - For all public/institutionalland uses (except schools, which are addressed above), a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB and a maximum interior CNEL of up to 50 dB are permitted. Open Space - For open space land uses, including agricultural uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. An exception is for open space land uses where quiet is a basis for the land use, in which case a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Commercial and Office - For all commercial and office land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. For professional offices there is also a maximum interior noise standard of 50 dB CNEL. e paD ConsuLtants Project Flle 734-05 7 September 2005 .... Wieland Associates, Inc. F I HAL Temecula Regional Hospital Facility . 4.2 City of Temecula Municipal Code The City ofTemecula's municipal code provides restrictions on the times during which construction activity can take place. For construction sites within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, it limits construction to between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal, state or local entity or emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of the ordinance. The city council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. 5 Thresholds of Significance Based on the noise criteria discussed above, and the CEQA guidelines, a significant impact will be assessed if the project will result in: . <$> Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or municipal code, or applicable standards of other agencies. This impact will occur if: (I) the CNEL exceeds 70 dB at the exterior or 50 dB at the interior of the proposed hospital or medical buildings; or (2) the project increases the exterior CNEL above the maximum permitted by the City's General Plan at existing land uses. <$> Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels. <$> A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact will occur if the project traffic increases the CNEL at any existing noise-sensitive receptor by an audible amount of 3 dB or more. <$> A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This condition will occur if construction activities occur outside the hours permitted by the City's Municipal Code. <$> Exposure of persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of activities at an airport. Since there are no airports in the vicinity of the study area, this issue will not be addressed in the report. 6 Existing Noise Environment Traffic on the local streets is the predominant source of noise that currently affects the study area. The following sections discuss the noise measurements and analyses that were conducted to identify the existing traffic noise levels in the study area. . paD Consultants Project File 734-05 8 September 2005 .... Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Temecuta Regional Hospital Facility e 6.1 Noise Measurements In order to document the existing noise environment, measurements were obtained at three locations throughout the study area, as shown in Figure 6-1. The locations are identified as follows: #1 - In the rear yard of 31775 De Portola Road. #2 - On the project site, at the offset of the proposed 5-story bed tower. #3 - In the rear yard of 31602 Calle Los Padres (this location is adjacent to SR-79). e Figure 6-1. Noise Measurement Locations . paD Consuttants Project File 734-05 9 September 2005 ..... Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN AL Temecuta Regional Hospital Facility . At locations #1 and #3, the measurement was obtained over a continuous 24-hourperiod. A 20. minute measurement was obtained at location #2. To obtain the measurements, the microphone was positioned at a height of 5 feet above the ground. The results of the noise measurements, provided in Appendix I, are summarized in Table 6-1. Table 6.1. Summary of Noise Measurements Measurement Measured Average location # Location Description Period Noise Level, dB(A) CNEL,dB 1 Rear yard of 31775 De Portola 24 hours 44.55 57 Road. . 2 On project site, at offset of 20 minutes 56 N/A proposed 5-story bed tower. 3 Rear yard of 31602 Calle Los 24 hours 52.63 65 Padres (adjacent to SR.79). The instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Models 820 and 870) and acoustical calibrators (Models CAL200 and CA.L250) manufactured by Larson Davis Laboratories. The accuracy of the calibrators is maintained through a program established by the manufacturer, and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4. 1971. . 6.2 Traffic Noise Exposures The results of the noise measurements were used to calibrate a proprietary version of the highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (as described in report FHW A-RD-77-108). The model was used to estimate existing traffic noise levels adjacent to various reaches of street in the study area based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the roadway to the receptor. Traffic volume data was provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers; speeds were based on the observed posted speed limits; the truck mix on SR-79 was based on data published by Caltrans; and the truck mix on the remaining streets was based on data provided by the County of Riverside. The California reference energy mean emission (Calveno) levels developed by Caltrans were used in the prediction model. The results of the modeling effort, provided in Appendix II, are summarized in Table 6-2. The table provides the estimated traffic noise levels without mitigation. It is noted that many of the residences in the study area are buffered from the traffic noise by walls of various heights that reduce the noise levels identified in Table 6-2 by about 5 to 10 dB. . P&D Consultants Project File 734-05 10 September 2005 ..... Wieland Associates, Inc. F I NA L Temecula Regional Hospital Facility Table 6-2. Existing Traffic Noise Levels e Distance to CNEL Contour from Near Lane Unmitigated Centerline, ft. Arterial I Reach CNEL @ 50' 60 dB I 65 dB 70 dB 75 dB 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 I 68.0 dB I 215 I 90 I no I no I no South of SR-79 I 67.5 dB I 200 83 no _n no PECHANGA PKWY. IPALA RD.) South of SR-79 I 70.5 dB I 320 143 56 no no REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 I 69.5 dB I 278 120 _n no --- SR-79 West of 1-15 Freeway 73.5 dB 490 235 100 no no West of PechanQa Pkwv_ (Pala Rd.) 78.0 dB 860 460 215 90 no West of MarQarita Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 n_ West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 73.5 dB 490 235 100 no no East of Butterfield StaQe Rd. 72.0 dB 395 185 75 no no 7 Future Noise Environment within the Study Area For ease of presentation, the discussion of future conditions in the study area with the project has been divided into two sections: construction and operation. Each is discussed in greater detail in the following sections. . 7. 1 Construction In compliance with the City's ordinance requirements, construction of the project will occur only between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturday. There will be no construction activities on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project will fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment, as well as the distance at which construction activities are taking place. Table 7-i shows typical noise levels associated with various types of construction-related machinery. Based on information provided by P&D Consultants, an analysis was conducted to estimate the combined construction noise levels that will be generated during each phase of construction. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 7-2. Based on the estimated combined construction noise levels identified in Table 7-2, an analysis was conducted to estimate the noise levels that will be experienced at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. This analysis is provided in Table 7-3. Referring to the table, the CNEL due to the construction activities is expected to exceed the 65 dB threshold and increase the ambient noise level by more than 3 dB at the residences to the northwest. At the residences to the south, construction is expected to increase the CNEL above the City's 65 dB threshold. However, the impact at these residential e paD Consultants Project File 734-05 11 September 2005 .. Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN A L Temecu!a Regional Hospital Facility . locations is not considered to be significant since construction noise is exempted by the City's municipal code. Table 7-1. Construction Equipment Noise Levels . Typical Average Equipment Noise Equipment Type Level at 50 ft. in dB(A)" Backhoe 80 Crane 88 Crusher/orocessor 88 Dozer 85 Excavator 80 Forklift 76 Grader 85 Loader 85 Paver 89 Paving equipment 85 Roller 74 Saw (concrete) 90 5craoer 89 Signal board 81 Surfacing eauipment 80 Tractor 80 Trencher 80 Trucks 88 Notes: a. Obtained or estimated from References 5 and 11. Groundbome vibration is measured in terms of the velocity of the vibration oscillations. As with noise, a logarithmic decibel scale (VdB) is used to quantify vibration intensity. When groundborne vibration exceeds 75 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to building occupants. The degree of annoyance is dependent upon type of land use, individual sensitivity to vibration, and the frequency of the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 100 VdB before building damage occurs. The primary vibratory source during the construction of the project will be large bulldozers. Based on published data (Reference II), typical bulldozer activities generate an approximate vibration level of 87 V dB at a distance of 25 feet. Atlhe average distance of the nearest residences to the construction site (about 305 feet) the estimated vibration level will be 65 VdB. This is below the threshold at which building damage occurs, and below the perception threshold of75 to 80 VdB. Therefore, the impact is not significant. However, as the bulldozer moves within about 100 feet of a residence, it is possible that vibration will be perceived by the homeowners. The impact will not be significant, though, because the vibration, ifit is perceived, will be short in duration (on the order ofa few days) and will not be sufficient to cause building damage. . paD Consultants Project File 734-05 12 September 2005 ..... Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN A L Temecula Regional Hospital Facility e Table 7-2. Estimated Combined Noise Leve' During Each Construction Phase Construction Phase 8: Avg. Equipment Load Avg. Equipment CNEL @ 50' Equipment Noise level @ SOra Factor" with load FactorC Phase 1 - Demolition t crusher I processor 88 dBA 0.780 82 dBA 2 dozers 88 dBA 0.590 81 dBA 1 loader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA 1 tractor /loader Ibackhoe 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA Combined 86 dBA Phase 2 - Site Grading 2 excavators 83 dBA 0.580 76 dBA 1 grader 85 dBA 0.575 78 dBA 2 tractors 83 dBA 0.410 74 dBA 5 trucks 95 dBA 0.490 87 dBA 2 other equipment 83 dBA 0_620 76 dBA 1 loader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA 2 scrapers 92 dBA 0.660 85 dBA 2 siQnal boards 84 dBA 0_820 78 dBA 2 trenchers 83 dBA 0.695 76 dBA Combined 91 dBA Phase 3a - BuildinQ Construction 1 concrete saw 90 dBA 0.730 84 dBA 2 cranes 91 dBA 0.430 82 dBA 2 other equipment 83 dBA 0.620 76 dBA 1 forklift 76 dBA 0.475 68 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA Combined 87 dBA Phase 3b - Paving 1 truck 88 dBA 0.490 80 dBA 3 pavers 94 dBA 0.590 87 dBA 5 paving equipment 92 dBA 0.530 84 dBA 2 rollers 77 dBA 0.430 68 dBA 2 siQnal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA 1 surfacing equipment 80 dBA 0.490 72 dBA Combined 90 dBA Notes: a. Obtained or estimated from References 5 and 11. b. Percentage of time equipment is operating at noisiest mode in most used phase on site. c. CNEL assumes all equipment operates simultaneously during an 8-hour workday. e . paD Consultants Project File 734-05 13 September 2005 ... Wieland Associates, Inc. F I NA L Temecula Regional Hospital FaciUty . Table 7-3. Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels . Estimated Attenuation Estimated Estimated Increase due Estimated Due to CNEL @ Construction to Noise-Sensitive Construction CNEL @ Distance, Sensitive Noise.+ Construction, Location Phase 50', dB dB' Location, dBb Ambient, dB dB Demolition 86 70 70 13 Nearest residences Grading 91 -16 (305') 75 75 18 to the northwest Construction 87 71 71 14 Paving 90 74 74 17 Demolition 86 57 66 1 Nearest residences Grading 91 -24 (760') 62 67 2 to the south Construction 87 58 66 1 Paving 90 61 66 1 Demolition 86 61 71 1 Nearest offices to Grading 91 -25 (880') 66 71 1 the east Construction 87 62 71 1 Paving 90 65 71 1 Demolition 86 63 71 1 Nearest offices to Grading 91 -23 (745') 68 72 2 the west Construction 87 64 71 1 Paving 90 67 72 2 Notes: a. Attenuation is based on a reduction of 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source. Distance is calculated from the center of the project site. b. At nearest residences to the south, 5 dB of attenuation is assumed for the wall adjacent to SR-79. At office properties to the east and west, an existing CNEL of 70 dB is assumed based on Table 6-2. 7.2 Project Operation The proposed project will introduce a number of new noise sources into the study area. These noise sources include: increased traffic (including emergency vehicles), helicopter flights, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, parking lot activities, trash pickups and landscaping/maintenance. Each of these sources is discussed in greater detail in the following sections. The traffic analysis assesses the impacts of both Phase I traffic and Phase I through V traffic. The worst-case future operational noise levels will occur when the entire project is operational (i.e., Phases I through V are complete); therefore the remaining analyses assume the entire project is complete and operational. Operation of the project will be passive and will not generate ground-borne noise or vibration. 7.2.1 Traffic . Using data from the sources described previously in Section 6.2, analyses were conducted to identify the future traffic noise exposures that will occur in the study area, both with and without the project. The analyses were conducted using a proprietary version of the highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (as described in report FHW A-RD-77-1 08). The model was used to estimate traffic noise levels adjacent to various reaches of street in the study area based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the roadway to the receptor. The California reference energy mean emission (Calveno) levels developed by Caltrans paD Consultants Project File 734-05 14 September 2005 Y.. Wieland Associates, Inc. FI NA l Temecula Reglonal Hospital Facility were used in the prediction model. The results of the analyses are provided in Table 7-4 for the "Opening Year Without Project" case, in Table 7-5 for the "With Project Phase j" case, and in Table 7-6 for the "With Project Phases j through V" case. Each table identifies the estimated CNEL generated by the traffic. It is noted that many of the residences in the study area are buffered from traffic noise by walls of various heights that are estimated to provide between 5 dB and 10 dB of noise reduction. Appendix II provides the complete analysis, including the traffic data used. Referring to Tables 7-4 through 7-6, it may be concluded that: . ~ The project will increase the traffic-generated CNEL by at most 0.5 dB. This is less than the 3 dB threshold of significance; therefore the impact is not significant. ~ Project traffic will not increase the CNEL from below the threshold of significance to above the threshold of significance at existing medical, residential, school, agricultural, or commercial/office land uses in the study area. Therefore, the impact is not significant. Another noise source that will be related to traffic at the hospital is emergency vehicles and their associated sirens. Based on previously conducted measurements of ambulance sirens, maximum noise levels may be as high as 105 dB(A) at 25 feet. Although these levels may cause some annoyance at nearby noise sensitive receptors, noise from emergency vehicles is considered to have a less than significant impact because it will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and because sirens are necessary for safety during an emergency. Table 7-4. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year Without Project . Unmitigated I Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial I Reach CNEL @ 50' I 60 dB 65 dB 70dB I 75 dB 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR.79 I 70.0 dB I 300 I 130 I 50 I h. I on South of SR-79 I 70.5 dB I 320 I 143 I 56 I on I on PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR.79 I 72.5 dB I 428 I 200 I 83 I m I --- REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 I 71.5 dB I 368 I 170 I 69 I on I on SR-79 West of 1-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 h. West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 80.0 dB 1,050 600 300 130 50 West of Maroarita Rd. 78.5 d8 905 490 235 100 on West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 on East of Butterfield Sta~e Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 on h_ paD Consultants Project File 734-05 15 . September 2005 Y.. Wieland Associates, IDe. F I NA l Temecula Regional Hospital Facility . Table 7-5. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels With Project Phase I Unmitigated I Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial! Reach CNEL @ 50' I 60dB I 65dB I 70dB I 75 dB I 80dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 I 70.0 dB I 300 I 130 I 50 I on I on South of SR-79 I 70.5 dB I 320 I 143 I 56 I on I on PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR.79 I 72.5 dB I 428 I 200 I 83 I n. I on REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR.79 I 71.5 dB I 368 I 170 I 69 I on I .n SR-79 West of 1-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 S6 --- West of Pechanga Pkwv. (Pala Rd.) 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56 West of Maroarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 --- West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 on East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB S20 255 110 --- --- Table 7-6. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels With Project Phases I through V . Unmitigated I Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arteriat ! Reach CNEL @ 50' I 60 dB I 65 dB I 70 dB I 75 dB I 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR -79 I 70.0 dB I 300 I 130 I 50 I --- I --- South of SR -79 I 70.5 dB I 320 I 143 I 56 I --- I --- PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 I 72.5 dB I 428 I 200 I 83 I _n I n_ REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 I 72.0 dB I 395 I 185 I 75 I --- I .n SR-79 West of 1-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 on West of Pechanga Pkwy. iPala Rd.) 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56 West of Margarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 on West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 -.. East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 d8 520 255 110 --- --- 7.2.2 Helicopter Flights Based on information received from P&D Consultants, a maximum of one flight per month will occur at the hospital. This flight will be used to transport a seriously ill patient to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading (i.e., back the same way it came). In order to analyze the potential noise impacts of helicopter flights the Helicopter Noise Model (HNM) version 2.2, developed by the Federal Aviation Administration, was utilized. The exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been confirmed, but the Bell 222 has been identified as a model that could potentially be used. Specific information regarding the flight profile was unavailable. Therefore, the following assumptions were made in order to conduct the analysis: ~ The helicopter was assumed to be a Bell 222. . paD Consultants Project File 734-05 16 September 2005 Y.. Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Temecula Regional Hospital Facility ~ The helicopter takeoff and approach profiles were assumed to be the default profiles provided by HNM for a Bell 222 helicopter. ~ The helicopter heading for both takeoff and approach was assumed to be exactly southeast on a heading of 1350 for at least several thousand feet from the helipad. ~ To identify the worst-case noise levels, the analysis assumed that the entire flight would occur during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Figure 7 -I shows the results of the analysis and identifies the 60, 65 and 70 dB CNEL contours. Referring to the fignre, the 65 dB CNEL contour is located entirely within the project site and neighboring flood control channel, and does not extend to any of the neighboring properties_ The 60 dB contour does not extend as far as the homes to the north and northwest, so helicopter flights are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels by 3 dB or more. Therefore, the impact is not significant. The noise level generated by a helicopter depends on a number of factors, including the activity (e.g., hovering, climbing, approaching, etc.), airspeed, power setting, altitude, and ground conditions. Based on published data (Reference 14), the highest average noise levels that will occur during a hover at the helipad range from 76 to 82 dB(A) at a distance of 500 feet, depending on the orientation of the helicopter relative to the receptor. At the distance of the nearest homes to the helipad (about 610 feet), the average noise level will be about 74 to 80 dB(A). Assuming that standard building construction provides 20 dB of noise reduction with windows closed, the interior noise level is expected to be about 54 to 60 dB(A). A study (Reference 15) was conducted to gauge community reactions to helicopter noise based not only on the level of noise but on the number of helicopter events per day. This study identifies the following formula for predicting the annoyance of helicopter noise: A = Bo +BL * L+BN *log(N) where, A = annoyance (rated on a scale from 0 = "not at all annoyed" to 10= "extremely annoyed"), Bo = -16.5, BL = 0.20, L = sound exposure level (SEL), BN = 1.64, and N = number of events. Assuming one flight on a "worst case" day, and that the flight hovers for one minute prior to landing or climbing, the sound exposure level (SEL) for this activity would be 94 to 100 dB(A). Using this formula, the estimated annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4 (on a scale from 0 to 10). paD Consultants Project File 734-05 17 September 2005 . . . ..4. Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN Al Temecuta Regional Hospital Facility . . = Heliport , 10Cl-fd Figure 7-1. Helicopter Flight Noise Contours . paD Consultants Project fite 734-05 18 September 2005 .... Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN A l Temecula RegionaL Hospital Facility . 7.2.3 Loading Dock Activities The proposed hospital has three loading docks for truck deliveries. These docks are located on the east side of the project site, south of the helipad. Once operational, the hospital will receive approximately 3 to 4 truck deliveries per day during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. There will be no nighttime deliveries. In order to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with the loading docks, data obtained as part of a previous study (Reference 12) was utilized. The highest noise levels measured at the loading docks were associated with large refrigerated trucks idling as they were unloaded; the measurements indicated a noise level of approximately 75 dB(A) at a dislllnce of 50 feet. Assuming the worst-case average noise level at the proposed loading docks will be the same, and allowing for the noise reduction provided by the distance to the worst-case residential property (approximately 845 feet) the estimated average noise level at the home due to loading dock activities is 50 dB(A). With four deliveries over a 24-hour period, this equates to a CNEL of 42 dB. This level is below the City's standard of 65 dB. Measurements indicate that the existing CNEL at the home is about 57 dB, so loading dock activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. Therefore, the impact is not significant. At the office property to the east (a distance of about 285 feet), the CNEL is expected to be about 51 dB. This is below the City's standard of 70 dB, and will not increase the existing CNEL by 3 dB or more; therefore, the impact is not significant. 7.2.4 Mechanical Equipment . There are four primary sources of mechanical equipment noise associated with the hospital: (I) the duty equipment located in the mechanical yard; (2) the emergency generators located in the mechanical yard; (3) the mechanical equipment room; and (4) rooftop mechanical equipment. Each of these noise sources is addressed below: Mechanical yard duty equipment - The mechanical yard is to be located on the east side of the project site, between the helipad to the north and the loading docks to the south. The duty equipment consists of three cooling towers and two transformers. Based on noise data for the cooling towers provided by the manufacturer, and on prediction algorithms for transformer noise (the transformers are assumed to be 1,000 kV A each based on discussions with the project's consulting engineers) it is estimated that the combined noise level for all the equipment is 74 dB(A) at 50 feet. The worst-case noise-sensitive location is the residential property approximately 710 feet to the north. At this distance the estimated noise level is 51 dB(A). Over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be about 58 dB. This level complies with the City's standard of 65 dB. However, the equipment will increase the existing CNEL at the residence by 4 dB. Therefore, the impact is significant. At the nearest office property to the east (a distance of about 160 feet), the CNEL generated by the duty equipment is estimated to be 71 dB. This exceeds the City's standard of70 dB; therefore, the impact is significant. Mechanical yard emergency generators - Also located in the mechanical yard are two emergency generators. Each of these generators will be tested for approximately 5 minutes each month, but may run for an indefinite period in the event of an emergency. Based on noise data provided by the paD ConsuLtants Project File 734-05 19 September 2005 . Y.. Wieland Associates, Inc. FINAL Temecula Regional Hospital Facility . generator manufacturer it is estimated that the noise level for each generator is 86 dB(A) at 52 feet. (Note that this level does not include the contribution from the engine exhaust stack, which may increase the noise level by several decibels depending on the quality of the muffler.) The worst-case noise-sensitive location is the residential property approximately 750 feet to the north. At this distance the estimated noise level is 63 dB(A) without the contribution of the engine exhaust. On a maintenance test day, this equates to a CNEL of at least 41 dB, which complies with the City's standard. However, if the generators run continuously over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be at least 70 dB. This exceeds the City's 65 dB standard. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant (depending on how long the generators run during a 24-hour period, and during which hours of the day they run). At the distance of the nearest office property to the east (about 185 feet), the CNEL will be about 53 on a maintenance test day, which complies with the City's standard of70 dB. However, if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB, which exceeds the City's standard. Therefore the impact is potentially significant at this location as well. . The mechanical equipment room - The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the Phase IE hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard. An analysis of the mechanical equipment room noise levels is not currently possible as the construction of the roomlbuilding is not known and the details for all the equipment are not available. However, based on the fact that the room will contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers, and boilers it is anticipated that it could produce significant impacts at the residential properties unless mitigation is incorporated into the design. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant. Rooftop mechanical equipment - Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are potential noise sources. However, structural designs and acoustical baffling are easily implemented in new construction, and it is anticipated that such measures will be included during the final design of the project to ensure that rooftop mechanical equipment noise does not create significant impacts. 7.2.5 Parking Lot Activities The predominant noise sources associated with parking lot activities include car doors slamming; cars starting; cars accelerating away from the parking stalls; and people talking, shouting and laughing. Measurements taken as part of a previous study (Reference 13) have been used to characterize the parking lot noise sources. The results are summarized in Table 7-7, below: Table 7-7. Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels Maximum Noise levels @ 50' Noise Source from Source PeoDle shouting/laughing 64.5 dB(A) Car door slamming 62.5 dB(A) Car idlin~ 61.0 dB(A) Car starting 59.5 dB(A) Car accelerating 54.5 dB (A) . paD Consultants Project FHe 734-05 20 September 2005 Y.. Wieland Associates, Inc. FI NA l Temecula Regional Hospital Facility . The noise generated by people talking at a normal conversational level was too low to be measured over the existing ambient. Therefore, using published data it has been assumed for this study that the average noise level of a conversation (with raised voices) is 65 dB(A) at a distance of 3 feet. This corresponds to an average level of 41 dB(A) at 50 feet. Parking lot activities at the proposed hospital will be sporadic in nature, generally occurring throughout the day as patients and visitors arrive and leave, with potential peaks in activity when staff arrive and depart at the beginning and end of their shifts. To estimate the average noise level that will be generated by these activities, an analysis was conducted using the measured and published data identified above, together with traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. The traffic data indicates that the busiest hour will be in the afternoon when 334 vehicles arrive and 595 vehicles leave the hospital site. The results of the analysis, provided in Table 7-8, indicate that the unmitigated average noise level (Leq) generated by the parking lot activities will be about 44.5 dB(A) at the nearest neighboring properties. Assuming this level of activity occurs throughout the day, the CNEL will be about 51.5 dB. This is below the City's standard of 65 dB. Adding the parking lot activity noise level to the existing CNEL of 57 dB yields a total of 58 dB, for an increase of I dB. Therefore, the impact is not significant. In addition, this type of noise would be expected from any development occurring on the site. At the nearest office property to the east Ca distance of about 310 feet), the CNEL will be about 61.5 dB. This is below the City's standard 000 dB; therefore, the impact is not significant. Table 7-8. Analysis of Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels . Estimated Estimated Estimated Correction Maximum Estimated Number of Duration of Total for Duration Noise level Correction Contribution to Events in 1 1 Event, Duration, reo 1 Hour, @50', for Distance 1-Hour leq, Activity Hour sec. sec. dB dB(A) reo 990', dB d8(A) People Shouting 93 5 465 .8.9 64.5 -25.9 '".I Car Door Slamming 1394 0.1 139.4 -14.1 62.5 -25.9 22.4 Car Idling 929 30 27870 8.9 61.0 -25.9 44.0 Car Starting 595 2 1190 -4.8 59.5 -25.9 28.8 Car Accelerating 929 5 4645 1.1 54.5 -25.9 29.7 People Talking 465 60 27870 8.9 41.0 -25.9 24.0 Estimated Overallleq: 44.5 7.2.6 Trash Pickups Trash pickup and compacting vehicles are also a source of noise that will be associated with the project. These vehicles use hydraulic equipment to raise and lower the metal trash bins and to compact their contents. Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at 50 feet during the raising, lowering and compacting operations. A typical trash pickup takes approximately three minutes. The . paD Consultants Project File 734-05 21 September 2005 Y.. Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN AL Temecula Regional Hospital FaciUty . higher noise levels occur during about one-half of the operation. Trash enclosures at the hospital are located throughout the project site. Assuming there are two trash bins at each enclosure, the pickup will take approximately six minutes. Some trash enclosures are as close as approximately 260 feet from the property lines. Allowing for this distance, and the time taken for the pickup, the estimated CNEL at the nearest property due to trash pick-ups is approximately 53 dB(A). Adding this to the existing CNEL of 57 dB at the nearest homes yields 58.5 dB, for an increase of 1.5 dB. Therefore, the impact is not significant. At the office properties to the east the estimated CNEL due to trash pickups will be much less than the City's standard of 70 dB. Therefore, the impact is not significant. 7.2.7 Landscaping/Maintenance Landscaping/maintenance activities will utilize noise-produciug equipment such as lawnmowers, lawn edgers, leaf blowers, and sweepers. However, these types of equipment are only utilized occasionally and for limited time periods. Such activities will typically be shielded from some of the noise-sensitive receivers by the hospital buildings themselves, further reducing noise levels. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 8 Future Noise Environment at the Project Site . For ease of presentation, the discussion of future noise impacts at the hospital site has been divided into two sections: exterior and interior noise levels. 8.1 Exterior Noise Levels Using data from the sources described previously in Section 6.2, an analysis was conducted to identify the future traffic noise exposures that will occur at the hospital facility site. The results of our analysis are provided in Appendix II and are summarized in Table 7-6. Referring to Table 7 -6, the City's standard of70 dB CNEL for a hospital site is exceeded at all exterior locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane ofSR-79. However, this is not considered a significant impact because there are no exterior useablelhabitable spaces within this envelope. 8.2 Interior Noise Levels Referring to Table 7-6, the CNEL is expected to be up to 71 dB at the medical office building closest to SR-79 (approximately 225 feet from the center of the nearest lane), and up to 68.5 dB at the hospital bed tower closest to SR-79 (approximately 340 feet from the center of the nearest lane). Based on a review of preliminary fa9ade construction details for the medical office and hospital buildings, it is estimated that the buildings will provide at least 21 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, the noise levels inside the buildings will comply with the City's interior CNEL standard of 50 dB (at locations further from the street the estimated CNEL will be lower than 50). Therefore, there is no significant impact. . paD Consultants Project File 734-05 22 September 2005 Y.. Wieland Associates, Inc. F I NA L Temecula Regional HospitaL Facility . 9 Assessment of Impact Using the criteria established in this study, the following may be concluded regarding the impact of the proposed project: ~ The project may expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Temecula's Noise Element. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant. Although the helicopter operations are not expected to exceed the City's standards, the single event noise levels may be annoying to nearby residents. ~ The project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. However, ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the demolition, site clearing and grading phase of the construction when activity occurs very near the property lines. This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the short duration of the activity. ~ The project may produce a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project as a result of activities at the site. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant. ~ With the exception of construction noise, which is exempt from City's noise standards, the project will not produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, there will be no significant impact. . 10 Mitigation Measures The following measures should be considered in the project's design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: I. Continuous 24-hour noise monitoring shall be conducted prior to, and immediately after, the mechanical equipment has been installed and is operational. If the CNEL exceeds 65 dB at the nearby residential properties or 70 dB at the nearby office properties as a result of the mechanical equipment at the hospital facility, or if the operation of the equipment increases the CNEL by 3 dB or more at either location, the hospital will implement appropriate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the significance thresholds established in this report. 2. Helicopter flights shall be limited only to emergency circumstances. 3. Helicopter pilots shall be informed of a preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast. 4. The number of truck deliveries using the hospital loading docks shall not exceed four per day. 5. Loading dock activities shall be permitted only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. paD Consultants Project FHe 734-05 23 September 2005 . Y.. Wieland Associates, Inc. FIN A l Temecula Regional Hospital Facility . 6. Mechanical ventilation will be required for hospital facility buildings since the interior standard of 50 dB(A) is to be met with windows and doors closed. 7. Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula municipal code. 8. All construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. 9. Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. 10. If feasible and appropriate, portable noise barriers shall be used around portions of the project site during construction. 11 Additional Noise Abatement For noise sources where no significant impact has been assessed, the following measures may be used to further reduce noise levels and reduce the potential for annoyance at residential properties: . 1. Trash pickups at the hospital facility should be limited to between the hours of7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 2. Landscaping and maintenance activities at the hospital facility should be limited to between the hours of7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 12 Impacts after Mitigation Using the criteria established in this study, the impact of noise generated by activities at the hospital facility will not be significant at residential locations after the recommended mitigation measures have been applied. 13 Project Alternative Only the "No Project" alternative has been considered in this study. Under this alternative, the status quo would be maintained and the proposed hospital facility would not be built. However, development in the area would continue in accordance with the City's General Plan and zoning map. Traffic volumes on the arterials, and hence traffic noise levels, would increase as the area grows. This is illustrated in Table 7 -6 for "Opening Year Without Project" conditions. New noise sources associated with the hospital facility would not be introduced into the study area. . paD Consultants Project File 734-05 24 September 2005 Y.. Wieland Associates, Inc. F I NA L Temecula Regional HospitaL Facility 14 References . 1. Temecula Hospital Site Phasing Plan. HKS Architects, Inc. September 9, 2005. 2. Environmental Impact Report. Temecula Regional Hospital (Draft). Chapter 3.0 - Project Description. Provided by P&D Consultants on July 15,2005. 3. Traffic Impact Analysis. Temecula Medical Center. Temecula California. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. November 4, 2004. 4. Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Temecula CA. Regulation Compliance, Inc. December 2, 2004. 5. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations. Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 31,1971. 6. Federal Highway Administration Regulations, Title 23. Highways, Part 772. (i.e., 23 CFR Part 772). 7. California Code of Regulations, Title 22: Social Security. 8. Requirements for Detennining and Mitigating Non-Transportation Noise Source Impacts to Residential Properties. Riverside County Department of Public Health, Office ofIndustrial Hygiene. January 15,2004. 9. Noise Element of the City ofTemecula General Plan. 10. Industrial Noise Control and Acoustics. Randall F. Barron. 2003. . II. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. April 1995. 12. Noise Measurements of Existing Truck Facility and Assessment of Noise Impacts for Proposed New Facility in the City of Vernon. Wieland Associates, Inc. October 15, 2003. 13. Acoustical Study for the Proposed Facility (Karaoke) Music Center in Buena Park. Wieland Associates, Inc. September 3, 1998. 14. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses. Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter. Federal Aviation Administration. February 1984. 15. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: ResultsJrom an Experimental Study. James M. Fields and Clemans A. Powell. April 15, 1987. . P&D Consultants Project File 734-05 25 September 2005 . APPENDIX I Noise Measurements . . Table I-I. Measured Hourly Noise Levels and Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL . Project: Location: Date: Temecula Hospital Rear yard, 31775 De Portola Rd. July 28/29, 2005 Hourly Hourly Noise Level, Noise Level, Measurement Period dB(A) Measurement Period dB(A) 12:00 am - 1:00 am 46.2 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 52.0 I :00 am - 2:00 am 45.3 1 :00 pm - 2:00 pm 52.5 2:00 am - 3:00 am 44.3 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 53.9 3:00 am - 4:00 am 45.3 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm 53.5 4:00 am - 5:00 am 48.5 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 54.0 5:00 am - 6:00 am 51.5 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 54.9 6:00 am - 7:00 am 53.6 6:00 pm -7:00 pm 53.5 7:00 am - 8:00 am 49.4 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 54.9 8:00 am - 9:00 am 49.4 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 54.7 9:00 am - 10:00 am 52.0 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 50.9 10:00 am -11:00 am 49.6 10:00 pm - 11 :00 pm 48.5 11 :00 am - 12:00 pm 51.2 11 :00 pm - 12:00 am 47.3 CNEL: 56.8 ~ 75 < ~ >l:l 70 '0 - 65 '" .. '" 60 ...:l '" '" 55 .~ 0 Z 50 ;>, ;:: 45 = 0 40 == -$" ... ....o;~ . I I I I I I I I I I I t I , I I I ] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , - ,- - r - -,- -,-- - -,- - T - -,- ~ -r - -,- - -r - -r - -, - -r -., - - r -,- - r - -,- - r - -,- - T - -,- - T -- I I I , I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I , I , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -...,- -,... - -,- - r - -,-- T - -J- - T - -,- -,. - -r-., - -r -..., - -r - -,- - r - -,- - r - -,- - T - -,- - T -- I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -""--""-,--,----,--,--,--,--,--"--",,-,--,,,,-,--,,,,-,--,,,,-,--""--1--T--I--,-- I I I " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -...,--r-...,--r--'--r--'--"--I--,--~-,--,...-...,--r-""-- ""--1--,-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I " I I I I I I I , -...,--r-,--r- --~--~-...,--r-""--r-...,--r--I--+- --r-- I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I ," I I 1 I J I 1 I I , , +- _ _,_ _ +- _ _,_ _ + _ _1_ - + _ _f-_ -+ _ -I- - --< - -I- - --<- - I- - -4- - 1- - -1- - + - -,- - +-- " '" I I , , , , -$" -$" -$" -$'. -$'. q' q' q' q' q' 0;'>><:> "'-~ 'ci~ q;~ ....<::j~ -$'. -$" -$'- -$" -$" -$'. 'boo 'boo 'boo 'boo 'boo ~o 'V'>><:> ",-<:><:> 'ci~ q;~ <::j~ o.~ " V Time of Day . WIELAND ASSOCIATES, INC. . . . Table 1-2. Noise Survey Project: Position: Date: Time: Noise Source: Distance: SLM Height: LD 820 SIN: ill CAL200 Calibrator SIN: Operator: Temecula Regional Hospital Facility On project site July 29, 2005 Noted Traffic on SR-79 Approximately 3] T from edge of SR-79 curb 5" 0996 2916 Cynthia M. Bordash 80.0 75.0 < 70.0 ~ 65.0 ~ 60.0 " ..l ~ 55.0 'S z 50.0 45.0 40.0 , I 1 I I -----~-----~------~-----~----- , " , " -----+-----~------~-----~----- , " , , _____~_____~______~_____L_____ , , I ' I , ~------'------:------:----- _____1________ __L_____L_____ , " , , , " -----i------------~-----, ----- , , , , -----T------------,------r----- , " , , o 40 80 60 20 Percent of Time Noise Level is Exceeded Measurement Period 1:14PM to to to 134 PM n* Ln Ln Ln 2 60.5 8 58.6 25 56.6 50 55.0 90 50.7 99 48.0 Leq 55.7 Lrnax 64.4 Lmin 46.4 JOO * Lcq is the average sound level during the measurement period. Ln is the sound level exceeded n% of the time during the measurement period. Lmax and Lmin are the maximum and minimum sound levels during the measurement period. WIELAND ASSOCIATES, INC. Table 1-3. Measured Hourly Noise Levels and Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL . Project: Location: Date: Temecula Hospital Rear yard, 31602 Calle Los Padres, adjacent to Rt. 79 July 28/29, 2005 Hourly Hourly Noise Level, Noise Level, Measurement Period dB(A) Measurement Period dB(A) 12:00 am - I :00 am 53.8 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 60.7 I :00 am - 2:00 am 52.6 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 60.8 2:00 am - 3:00 am 51.5 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 60.7 3:00 am - 4:00 am 52.1 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm 61.1 4:00 am - 5:00 am 56.6 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 61.5 5:00 am - 6:00 am 59.8 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 62.7 6:00 am - 7:00 am 61.6 6:00 pm -7:00 pm 61.8 7:00 am - 8:00 am 61.7 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 60.6 8:00 am - 9:00 am 61.2 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 59.8 9:00 am - 10:00 am 60.9 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 59.2 10:00 am -11:00 am 60.9 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 57.3 11:00am-12:00pm 60.4 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 55.4 CNEL: 64.6 ~ 75 < ~ =:l 70 't:l Qj 65 ;. '" 60 ...;l '" '" 55 .~ 0 Z 50 .... ;:: 45 :; 0 40 = . , , I I I I I , t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - -,- - r -,- - T" - -,- - T - -,- - T ~ -1- - -r - -r - -, - -r - -, - - r - -,- - r - -,- - r - -1- - T - -1- - T -- I I I , I I I I I I I " I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , - -, - - ,... - -, - - r - -,- - .,. - -,- - T - -,- - -r - - r - , - - r - -, - - , - .., - - r - -,- - r - -,- - 't - -1- - T - - I I I I I I I I I I I " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - -,- - r -..,- -,.. - -J- r - ,- T - -I T -r r -, r -, j- -.., - r - -1- -..,. -- I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I - -,- -)- - -1- - - -,- - +- - -1- - T - -1- - T - -r - -j - -r - -1 - - r - -j- - j- - -1- - r - -1- - T - -1- - * -- I I , I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I - -l - - I- - .., - - j- - -1- - T - -,- - -t - -1- - -t - -I- - -t - -I- - -t - - I- - .., - - t- - .., - - t- - -1- - + - -1- - + - - I I I , ,t I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I 1 . I I 1 1 , 'I 1 " I 1 , - -1- _l- - -4- -!- - -,- -!-- -1- - -'- - -1- - -t - -I- - -t - -I- - -t - - +- - -1- - +- - -1- - t- - -,- - +- - -1- - -'- -- , . , 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-",<s> "'~"" "^~ 'ci~ 'f,~ ,-"'~ ,-",<s> "'~"" "^~ 'ci~ 'f,~ ,-",<s> Time of Day . WIELAND ASSOCIATES, INC. . APPENDIX /I Traffic Noise Analysis . . Table 11-]. Distance fo CNEL Contour Lines. Existing (Year 2004) Conditions A~g. CNEL @ SO' S""'" Daily From Near Distance to Wim Pn:ijecl: COn1tlurs Arlerial Limit,: %TrucltS 'fiaffic Lane C/L From Near I..aDi:iCtiilti:irline, feet !Arterial/Reach T".,.. ..ph Elev. Med; H 200<! 200<! 6<ldB 65dB 70dB 75dB 80dB IBU1TERFIEW STAGE RD. North ofSR-79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 12,400 68.0 215 90 --- -- --- South ofSR-79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 10,700 67.5 200 83 -- --- --- IPECHANGA PKWY. (PAJA RD.) South of SR-79 5 40 AT 1.84% 0.74% 34,000 70.5 320 143 56 -- -- jREDHA WK PKWY. South ofSR-79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 18,000 69.5 278 120 -- -- -- ~R.79 iwestofl-15 Freeway 6 55 AT 6.90% 6.90% 17.700 73.5 490 235 100 --- twesl of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 57,300 78.0 860 460 215 90 --- !west of Margarita Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 38,700 76.0 680 340 155 62 no rwest of Butterfield Stage Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 20,400 73.5 490 235 100 -- -- East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 15,200 72.0 395 185 75 --- --- >I' Arterial Types: I) 2 lanes. 35 mph or less; 2) 2 lanes, 40 mph; 3) 2 lanes, 45 mph or more; 4) 4-6 lanes, 35 mph or less; 5) 4-6 lanes, 40 mph; 6) 4-6 lanes, 45 mph or more; 7) 4-6 lane freeway, 55 mph or more; 8) 8 lane freeway, 55 mph or more. Noles: 'AT, 'ABOVE', and 'BELOW' refer to the elevation of the arterial relative 10 the surrounding area. WIELAND ASSOCIATES . . . . . . Table B-2. Distance to CNEL Contour Lines, Opening Year Without Project .. Avg. CNEL @SO' Sp.oo Daily FromNear DisUiileelo'WltbJ>rOJettContours Arterial Li1lli4. ..T .~'" Tridlie LaneCIL FrnmNcitrLlllleCellt.erline,feet .,..::.. rte:riaJl Reach ... 1Yl>'" mph ""v. M<d. Hvy NoProj; NoProj; 60dB 65dB 70dB 75dB 80dB UITERFlEW STAGE RD. North of SR~ 79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 18,984 70.0 300 130 50 -- --- South of SR-79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 20,508 70.5 320 143 56 --- -- ECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) outhofSR-79 5 40 AT 1.84% 0.74% 53,328 72.5 428 200 83 --- -- EDHA WK PKWY. South of SR-79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 27,348 71.5 368 170 69 --- R.79 Westofl-15 Freeway 6 55 AT 6.90% 6.90% 28,152 75.5 640 320 143 56 --- West of Pee hang a Pkwy. (PaJa Rd.) 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 94,704 80.0 1,050 600 300 130 50 West of Margarita Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 66,960 78.5 905 490 235 100 --- West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 35,376 75.5 640 320 143 56 --- Easl of Butterfield Stage Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 23,724 74,0 520 255 110 --- -- '" Arterial Types: 1) 2 lanes, 35 mph or less; 2) 2 lanes, 40 mph; 3) 2 lanes, 45 mph or more; 4) 4-6 lanes, 35 mph or less; 5) 4-6 lanes, 40 mph; 6) 4-6 lanes, 45 mph or more; 7) 4-6 lane freewdY, 55 mph or more; 8) 8 lane freeway, 55 mph or more. Notes: 'AT', 'ABOVE', and 'BELOW refer 10 the elevation of the arterial relative to the surrounding area. WIELAND ASSOCIA TES Table 11-3. Distance to CNEL Contour Lines, With Project Phase I : Avg.: CNEL@50' $..... Dalty FrOniNeai DistarlC~ t()WithProjed Contours Arterial Liriiit, %TriIcks Tramc LaneC/L FromNear I..8JleCenterline:, feet rterial I Reach "fyp<* mpb Elev; Med; Hv Phd PILI 60dB 65dB 70dB 75dB lWdB U7TERFlEUJ STAGE RD_ North of SR-79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 19,584 70.0 300 130 50 --- -- South of SR-79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 21.264 70.5 320 143 56 .- 'ECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 5 40 AT 1.84% 0.74% 54,084 72.5 428 200 83 --- n_ EDHA WK PKWY. South of SR-79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 28,320 71.5 368 170 69 -- --- ~R-79 !wcstofl-15Frccway 6 55 AT 6.90% 6.90% 28,356 75.5 640 320 143 56 --- jwesl ofPechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 98,064- 80.5 1,]00 640 320 143 56 jwesl of Margarita Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 69,816 79.0 950 520 255 110 no Iwest of Butterfield Stage Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 37.116 76.0 680 340 155 62 no !East of BultertieJd Stage Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 24.108 74.0 520 255 lIO -- -- * Arterial Types: I) 2 lanes, 35 mph or less; 2) 2 lanes, 40 mph; 3) 2 lanes, 45 mph or more; 4) 4-6 lanes, 35 mph or less; 5) 4-6 lanes. 40 mph; 6) 4-6 lanes, 45 mph or more; 7) 4-6 lane freeway, 55 mph or more; 8) 8 lane freeway, 55 mph or more. Notes: 'AT, 'ABOVE', and 'BELOW referto the elevation of the arterial relative to the surrounding area. WIELAND ASSOCIATES . . . . . . Table 11-4. Distance to CNEL Contour Lines, With Project Phases I lhrough V Avg. CNEL@50' ..... S""" Dllily Fri:tmNear Distilnci! to With l>rOJect: Contours Arterial Limit. % Trucks TriIfIic L3nfi CJL FromNea".Liiile'Ciiiiterliile,feet rtei-iaIJRea:ch ... Type* ..lnDh Elev, Mnt "'Y Ph.l~V Ph,lwV "'dB 65dB 70dB 75dB """B UTTERFlELD STAGE RD. Nonh of SR-79 6 50 AT 1,84% 0.74% 20,100 70.0 3()() 130 50 on --- South of SR-80 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 21,876 70.5 320 143 56 on --- 'ECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) outh of SR-79 5 40 AT 1.84% 0.74% 54,708 72.5 428 2()() 83 --- 1/EDHA WK PKWY. SouthofSR-79 6 50 AT 1.84% 0.74% 29,136 72.0 395 ]85 75 --- -- SR.'9 Westofl-15Frecway 6 55 AT 6.90% 6.90% 28,572 75.5 640 320 t43 56 on West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pa1a Rd.) 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 97,452 80.5 1,100 640 320 143 56 West of Marganla Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 72,180 79.0 950 520 255 110 -- West of Buuerficld Stage Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 38,544 76.0 680 340 155 62 -- EastofBultcrficld Stage Rd. 6 55 AT 6.80% 4.30% 24,432 74.0 520 255 110 -- --- * Arterial Types: 1) 2 lanes, 35 mph or less; 2) 2 lanes, 40 mph; 3) 2 lanes, 45 mph or more; 4) 4-6 lanes, 35 mph or less; 5) 4-6 lanes, 40 mph; 6) 4-6 lanes, 45 mph or more; 7) 4-6 lane freeway, 55 mph or more; 8) 8 lane freeway, 55 mph or more. Notes: 'AT, 'ABOVE', and 'BELOW' refer to the elevation of the arterial relative to the surrounding area. WIELANDASSOCIATES . . Appendix D Traffic Impact Analysis . . . . Prepared by: Jose R Nunez Jr Transportation Planner II TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER ADDENDUM Temecula, California September 22, 2005 LLG Ref. 3-04-1403 Under the Supervision of.' John Boarman Principal tI~faw& Gieensp_n. &igiltJil$" .45i2Ruffnt!r:!;ti'OOt. S1!itellll! S:al'l Die", Or~\' ,a_JRlilih a5&3biiil811J , ~ge~i!!OO~1;OTC! . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Project Trip Generation! Distribution! Assignment............................................................ 4 2.1 Project Trip Generation.................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Project Trip Dis1nbution.................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Project Trip Assignment .................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Analysis Approach and Methodology ................................................................................. 10 3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1 Signalized Intersections....................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 Unsignalized lntersections................................................................................... 14 3.1.3 Street Segments ................................................................................................... 15 4.0 De Portola Road Access Restriction Analysis ...................................................................... 16 4.1 Existing Conditions and Planned Configuration ........................,.................................... 16 4.2 De Portola Road Capacity................................................................................................ 16 5.0 Dartola Road Access Alternative (Access to Margarita Road via DartoIa Road) ........... 21 5.1 Access to Margarita Road via DartolaRoad ...................................................................21 5.2 Advantages I Disadvantages ofDartola Road Access Point ........................................... 21 6.0 Alternative Assessment (Access to De Portola Road for Phase I and Access to both De Portola Road and DartoIa Road for Phase II) .................................................................. 25 6.1 Project Phase I Analysis - Access to De PortolaRoad ................................................... 25 6.2 Total Project Analysis - Access to De Portola Road and DartolaRoad......................... 25 7.0 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 32 lJNscorr,LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) ll.O Rof. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum ApPENDICES APPENDIX A. Manual Peak Hour and ADT Traffic Volume sheets B. Cumulative Project Traffic Data C. Intersection Level of Service Analysis sheets D. City of Ternecula Roadway Classification, Level of Service data E. Within Project Vicinity Street Segment Table LIST OF FIGURES SECTION-FIGURE # PAGE I-I Site Plan..................................... ............................................................................. ............ .... 2 2-la Project Trip Distribution - De Portola Road Access Restriction........................................... 5 2-lb Project Trip Distribution - Dartola Road Access Alternative................................................ 6 2-2a Project Traffic Volumes - De Portola Road Access Restriction .......................................... 7 2-2b Project Traffic Volumes - Dartola Road Access Alternative ............................................_... 8 3-1 Existing Traffic Volumes....................................................................................................... II 3-2 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ................................................................................... 12 3-3 Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes.........................................._....................... 13 4-la Existing + Cumulative Projects +Project Traffic Volumes (De Portola Road Access Restriction) ................................................................................... ]8 5-lb Existing + Cumulative Projects +Project Traffic Volumes (Dartola Road Access Alternative) ........................................................................................ 24 6-] Project Alternative: Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Phase I Traffic Volumes..... 28 6-2 Project Alternative: Existing + Cumulative Projects + Total Project Traffic Volumes........ 31 . . ltlSCOTT, LAw& GREENSPAN. engineers ). LW Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum . LIST OF TABLES SECTION-TABLE # PAGE 1-1 Total Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................ 4 3-1 Level of Service Thresholds For Signalized Intersections ..................................:................. 14 3-2 Level of Service Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections................................................. 15 4-1 Intersection Operations (De Portola Road Access Restriction)............................................. 19 4-2 Street Segment Operations (De PortolaRoad Access Restriction)....................................... 20 5-1 Intersection Operations (Dartola Road Project Alternative).................................................. 22 5-2 Street Segment Operations (Dartola Road Project Alternative) ........................................,... 23 6-1 Project Alternative: Project Phase I Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Road) . 26 . 6-2 Project Alternative: Project Phase I Segment Operations (Access to De Portola Road) ...... 27 6-3 Project Alternative: Total Project Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Road & Dartola Road) ....................................................................... 29 6-4 Project Alternative: Total Project Segment Operations (Access to De Portola Road & Dartola Road) ....................................................................... 30 . lINSCOTT, LAw & GRElliSPAN, engmeen> ) ILG Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER ADDENDUM . Temecula, California September 22, 2005 1.0 INTRODUCTION Linscott, Law & Greenspan Fngffieers"(LLG) completed a traffic study for the teniecula Medical Center project dated November II, 2004, which has been approved by the City of Temecula. Since that time the project land uses and intensities have not changed, however, the access to/from the site could potentially change. Therefore, the purpose of this addendum. js: .1) to address the effect of restricting turn movements at the proposed De Portola Road driveway; per prelirnin"ry Conditions of approval to be reCommended by the City, 2) to address a project alternative considered in the EIR., whereby alternative access would be provided via an eXtension ofDartola Road, and 3) tOa?~es~ II project alternative providing access to only De Portola Road for Phase I of the project arid to both De Portola Road and DartoIa Road for Phase IT. The November 2004 traffic study assumed access was provided to SR 79 and De Portola'RoalI (willi '. full access). ~'- '. ., The De Portola Road 'access restriction would include access to SR 79 and access to De Portola Road but the access to De Portola Road would be limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound left-turns would be prohibited. " The Dartola Road access alternative would include access to SR 79, 1].0 "acceSs to De Portola Road and acc~s directly to M.ta Road via Dartola Road. Both access scenarios also inClude access to the west via an easement across the adjacent property. Figure 1-1 details the project site plan. The site plan refers to 5 project phases. It should be noted that the approved traffic study for the project analyzes two" project phases. The first phase was 170 hospital beds and 80,000 square feet (sf) of medical office space. The second phase was buildout of the site_ Therefore, the' traffic study addressed the project phasing conservatively. The following items are discussed in this addendum: . Project Trip Generation/Assignment for both access scenarios; . Analysis Approach and Methodology; . De Portola Road Access Restriction Analysis; . Access to Margarita Road via Dartola Road; . Phase I Alternative: De Portola Road access; ) lLG Rd. 3-{)4-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum . LINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN. engineers 1 . . . z o Ii: a: o Ul Ul Q Cl z iii <t :J: ... I I ~ ! "f ~ t. r I sll!...1 ! ill _,I ;;; ~i ii ~H!' ~~. f~ I 1 .. . " . I ~ .... '!! Ol g ::t .. I !! !! '" I . I ! = !! .. ! .. Ii .. , "!! =-~ ~ li.:Ii :i :i :i a I, I I I ! j " " 9 11 " z 52 ~ .~ ,.~ "i" 5 ,,- 0 ,.... a.. z Q) ~ ,-CD :J 0> .- LL N C j ..2 "0. .~.e ; u.. .- '" I 1 ~J !I" xU .... i / ~n Jl /1 w5e W!!i! !I!! ~;l I ~.. ~.. I .. .. / / / I / / / / /11 rf.:..""=>'" Illl .::;---"" / / / / / / / ill I!> .... .. 2 " ~ 001 0- .......Q ~~ ~a ... (;jc; ",::I z ~ '" - ... 0. ~ l- V> ~ 0 "" z = u w V> ;: W Co Z '" '" = ...J ...J '" ~ ~ ffi c ~ ~ o .g fil ::l! i . Phase IT Alternative: De Portola Road and Dartola Road access; . Project Alternative Assessment; and . Conclusions. . . l~SCOTT.LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers . 3 . 2.0 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION I DISTRIBUTION I ASSIGNMENT OF BOTH ACCESS SCENARIOS 2.1 Project Trip Generation As mentioned in the introduction, the project land uses and intensities will remain as in the November 2004 traffic report. Table 1-1 shows the trip generation for the project. As shown in Table I-I, the project is calculated to generate 11,458 ADT with 865 AM peak hour trips and 929 PM trips. The site improvements in Phase 2 of the traffic report incorporate all five of the phases shown on the site plan (Figure 1-1). TABLE 1-1 TOTAL PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Daily AM PM Land Use Size Trip Ends Peak Honr Trips Peak Honr Trips Rate ADT ~of 1lI:0ut Volume %of 1lI:0ut Volume ADT Split III Out ADT Split III Oot Hospital 320 Beds 20.01800' 6,400 .8% 70:30 358 154 10% 40:60 256 384 Medical Office 140,000 sf 36.131kst" 5,058 7% 79:21 279 74 10% 27:73 78 211 Totals: - 11,458 . . 637 228 - - 334 595 . F09tnotes: a. Source: SANDAG 'Brief Guide of Vehicular Trallic Generation ~', April 2002. b. fIE Trip Generation Rates (7. Ed.). 2.2 Project Trip Distribution The distribution for each access scenario was baSed on the Regional Distnbution (Figure 5-1) contained in the Temecula Medical Center traffic report. The distribution for both the De Portola. Road access restriction and the Dartola Road access aIteniative was then slightly adjusted based on the individual scenarios proposed access points. Figure l-la shows the project distribution for De Portola Road Access Restriction. Figure 2-lb details the project distribution for the Dartola Road Project Alternative. 2.3 Project Trip Assignment Figures l-la and Figure 2-1b show the anticipated trip assignment for the De Portola Road access restriction and the Dartola Road access alternative, respectively. These figures show the difference in traffic on SR 79, Margarita Road, and De Portola Road adjacent to the project site, depending on which scenario is being analyzed. A more detailed description of the project trip assignment is detailed below. . UNSCOTT,LAW & GREENSPAN, engineets ) LLG Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum 4 aszz ,.... 0 0 I gF ^llDO \''1 ~ I:!: (I) {12 f3 ... a a: :J g.. f8 0) f!: w .- l)8 LLw<t a~ H::s ~ ~ ~~ o >: :::E a ~ ~E " .., N ~ t "o,,~ ""., REDHAWK 'III PKWY ~HHi _N_ ~ +--2X ,.......,,- ,'5" la_ MAR "<I., 'I GARITA RD " n ~ ~ ... ~ w C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ os '" ~~ F.. '-.,,<1 --- AlIa _.L:J_atOlId -, I I ~ : I ~ I v.J. I "" PROJECT ~(h :_D/ll' _ ..II -,," 1 ~ ~ 'I COUNTRY I """- " GLEN WY 1 ., ::: I I " on . ~ ~ ... l>; o '" f:l h o r:; o ~ Q.., Pia Pico " '" ..I ,-- I --,,~., I 01 ~I :::,1 "'I 01 lJ, "'I i>'ll I /SR: I c g~ :;j H :;5 a " .., n m r-- u ..2 !E :=e 00- .=" "c c " " 0 0-" .D- 'sd ~ I I ~ c ci ",I 0'" ,Q ","- ~I ,I'l 0)0 ... ;::it; ",,::j .. I " f:l x .... x 0" I z~ - z ~ >- '" - >- ~ ~ <> '" ~ u ~:z. ~ ~ ;:: ~ "- _ <:C ~ l:n ...J...Jc.=l ; . 5 . ~~ z ~ " "'" ~,"O~ _ZliL _"S .,- ~ ,"01 ,"" ..II , "S REDHAWK xc;t- i MARGARITA RD ". ...... PKWY " "S- ,i "s- ,ti e ooz, "" "S, NNN 0'" N- Il")~.o I 1 I'" '" I'" <- 1:S ~ I~ ~ I~ 0 '" J'" ~ I 1 ~ ~ '" 1 1 '" ........ I ~" '" \J) -., ~ :s [pROJECT ..II _"Z~ h l...D/1Y ~ I .SZ...... , COUNTRY '" 0 1 "Z_ " GLEN WY 0 ~ xcz, '" Q., J ,., i:l 0 I PIO PICO ~ ~ll Q., " '" ..I --r------ t I XSt, " 01 ., ~I ,., .: ~I en . 0 5:; Q.,I " '!l>@ 01 .2-; ~I iliS ~I is 0 0:1 ~ ~$ J (= ~: "C "C C C> c" ~ , 0 o~ a ..,Q ~ ,; I "'co ~~ I ",I . t g ol!/ ~ii: ~ + ~I .......,., COO .... Gi~ 0::--' . . 6 ;Q ~~ ~ I 5~ i C\I !9 a: ~ CD ~~ m ... D.. I8 ~ :J f=W I 0) '8 u: ~< afi! ~ fS fi1 ~ ~ C z ~ f- ~ ; I- en ~ 8 oCJ 5 .:;: V'I 3: W t::'I = <( a:: ~ ...J.....lC!) ~ _lOVe\: I 1900 t ~ '/rl. ~ ... ~ " ~ o ... rt<:/t. REDHAWK PKWY - m~ :-;:.;;;- "'.. I '-... ~ war. ~~~<l --- I o n ..... o '" PIO PICO itl -"0 0"'0 ~~~ "'nN '" or- _!"<l 0'" ___.., oot- 2 1 I>; 1 ~ 1 ~ I r--O CI:l. I ..'" ........... I ~rn ~~CT J~ I I I I OQ ~I>; -:l ~ ~ 0. [:l ~ >---< li) h U ~ o ~ 'Q., B6ZIt"..... ' u/t - BL lor . 0.. ~~ "0 -6/J-~ I() I') __ re/t ..JI st/tl_r------ t/' .Iil BlL/st. I 0"" ............. 1 '" 31 ~l 0.1 01 ~I ~I 1>;1 I g:1 "'I 7 +-LIZI229 .... COUNTRY 1 GLEN WY ~ ~ ;;; t o Z o - N C1l r-- o co r-- r'l ~~ as f3~~ ~ ~ C}I ~~~. C\I g ~(1)" Q) ~ ~81 :; ~ ~~ ~ .Q)b~O-~ U. Y:! C~ ~ 6 a::Q:: S IE :5~ 8 ~ I o 0- W C . '" '15 .; '" I .,'" oS! ......"-- ",I ......'" 0>0 ... Gig "'.... z " - "" . .... "- .... '" . 0 c3 z ~ u "-' '" ;;: "-' '" z "" '" ~ -' -' '" . _zl/v r 6el>'r 1900 . Ir,- MAR rt/rn. GARITA RD i ./r'- 0" ~~ . . . ~ ~ 0 z _ 6B/tli:: ....0 N~ r 09/<z _O~/ll .......... -~ ~m _Lt/ze 2865 r"/<9 ..ij . ,LS/S6- MARGARITA RD r L.lz< REDHAWK , 'Llzr- " L'lz<...... ,t, PKWY ::l L9/m...... "'.... 0"'0 :;, -.... ,,,.,, ~ ,..... ............... -VN .,0 -,,- ,V" I I I~ '" l;:s <- I/) 10 ",r<! I... 11)'" Ie;] ",0 0 l"l ~ I ~ ~ I E'S I '" I ........ O"l ....... ~N CI) I .......... ~~ "'- o~ ~;:s I Jd/a - h l!:?3f01fd ..i I _gin 2 ---- 230 ~ 0 I 6..IL. ,.) , COUNTRY o. '" E:; I Zt It- <0 GLEN WY I 9<.lz....... " ~ , 0 I N V " Pro PICO ~ 0 0.. I/) ...'" ~ "" ~ ....., +-8 1st -" ~~ ra I. ..il LZ/L-;.=r------- t .1' ...... I" 06/<<...... I"" <0 .......... " I v '" , 31 N v " &ll 0> ~I l"- 01 :r:1' 0 ~: '" I') "<l- I ~I ~ "'I 0 .ri '" ",' o1;l ~i:i: _t >- ,-", <DO >- ... S"" G:i(; ~ s: ",::I _<0: ............ .c ffi~ t! 2 C}I ~~~I C\I g Ai CJ) :< o~~a: i CD - ::::) lL 0 .... ~~:I: 0 ~b~~1 u. ac::S 2 a: a: ~ :5 Q. :s :i: ~ ~ I o z ~ <0: ~ ... 0 en 0 z " w '- w '" '" " '" 0 8 De Portola Road Access Restriction: Access to SR 79 and De Portola Road: . Project traffic was assigned based on the distribntion for De Portola Road Access Restriction. The rnajority of the project trips (68%) were assigned to the SR 79 access points with a lesser percentage of project trips to the access point on De Portola Road (28%) and the remaining (4%) project traffic was assigned through the reciprocal access to the adjacent development to the west and to Country . Glen Way. Other factors considered in detennining trip assignment were the location of the medical office buildings and parking space placement. It should be noted that for egressing vehicles wishing to head west on De Portola Road, it was assumed these vehicles would exit via the SR 79 main access point and head north on Margarita Road to De Portola Road. Dartola Road Access Alternative: Access to SR 79 and Dartola Road. Project traffic was assigned based on the distribution shown in Figure 2-lb. For the Dartola Road' access alternative; no access to De Portola Road was provided and those vehicles oriented to/from De.Portola Road were assumed to instead utilize Dartola Road as an access point. As with the De pOJ;tola Road access restriction, the aCcess points along SR 79 were assigned the majority of the prciject' trips (63%) with a slightly lesser percentage of project trips to Dartola Road (33%) and the remaining (4%) project traffic was assigned through the reciprocal access to the adjacent, development to the west and to Country Glen Way. Utilizing Dartola Road as an access point provides direct access to Margarita Road at a signalized intersection. According to City stafi; there . has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartola Road/Margarita Road ' intersection. However, there are no plans to do so. ltJsCOTT,LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers ) u.G Ref. 3-{)4..!403 Temecu]a Medical Center Addendum . 9 . . . 3.0 ANALYSIS ApPROACH AND METHODOLOGY This traffil: analysis assesses the access points and the key street segments within the project site. The key intersections and street segments were analyzed for the following scenarios. . Existing traffic . Existing + Cumulative traffic . Existing + Cumulative traffic + Project traffic The study area intersections and street segments analyzed are listed below. Signalized Iiltersections: . De Portola Road / Margarita Road; . Dartola Road /1>4argarita Road; . SR 79 South / Margarita Road; and Unsignalized Iiltersection: -. SR 79 Soilth / Country Glen Way . De Portola Road / Project Driveway. Street Segments: . De Portola Road: west ofPio Pico Road; . DePortol.a Road: east ofPio Pico Road; . Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartola Road; and . Margarita Road: Dartola Road to SR 79. Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and intersection counts were conducted by LtG in July 2005. IiI addition, traffic counts were also obtained from the Ternecula Medical Center report. Appendix A contains the existing traffic volumes. Figure 3-1 depicts the existing traffic volumes. It should be noted that for the existing + cumulative projects traffic scenario, traffic data from seventeen (17) cumulative projects were utlized from the original Temecula Medical Center Traffic Report. In addition, information for four (4) additional cumulative projects, which have' begun processing since the Ternecu1a Medical Center report was completed, were obtained from,_City of Temecula staff and included in the analysis. The twenty-one (21) cumulative projects generate a total of 160,500 ADT with 5,560 trips in the AM peak hour and 6,130 trips in the PM peak hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Appendix B contains the cumulative project traffic data. Figure 3-2 depicts the cumulative project traffic volumes. Figure 3-3 depicts the existing + cumulative project traffic volumes. ltNscOTT,LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) !.LG Ref. 341-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum 10 ~Olt) ~~~ .. (t:!~ ""I")~ '- 96 16t ....................... ..... _999!L6t ,...Ng ..J~~ ,96 199 ~'i',- '-..891 <u 23.5.0.0 "'t~ --/~~~ 699~09 J MARGARIT. ' OL / LL s;;t'~,t; ~RD ~?! ~ ~~6~L~~ !... .......~~ 8t~1 ss, N~H~ I ;0 I .::::. :ll llil N1 Mf, I 1-_ J.:l:;rro~d I~ ----- ,... --,e;j IA I I I ~~ I "...... I g~ I PROJECT:!! '-..ZL / LDhT I~ 99 J =..::.._..c._ ~LZl/~ . It; COUNTRY I :!!;o GLEN WY I m o ~ o '" __,__ I --- .. I - I 01 all [:jl ",I 01 til ~: 1 I I t '" . 0 '" a '" 8lil o ....:5 o ... ~ '" ~ PID PIca o o CD CD .......~.~~;......... ,,:!~ffl "'. ~ci-""'" " ::,::l[:i '-.. ,.'/691.... "'I~ _o09/e",.'. . . ' ZSO/"'" : :. ;~L/z/eLl J ,t : . ert- I; . ".9Cl/'lSL,. lOr-CO : '. ~::l1l1' ~ ,...;efO NIO...... -'. ........ ,t; "00> N_" a~d 0_0 - - REDHAWK PKWY ~ ....... Ct:l E-< o E:; o g: 0'" 0'" .... <Xl [oJ ..,::;, o 0; [oJ OS '" ;;- .......... -" _N t '" Ol'\~ r-:I" T' o o .... <Xl .., I 1 1 ~~ o z r-ff}co:IE d> ~~ ,i3 Q) g: L..Oa:~ :J ~u. 5 ffi C) J: 0 .- ~ ~ u.<l'~Q z 51 ti::E :IE ~~ ~ m . '" 15 I ",'" 0'" ~~ ......,., 0>0 ... Gi(; ",::j ~ ~. c '- z >- <:: >- ~ 8~~ V> w z;OW .::i.:5c'; '" c . "-- 60 It< -"""roc/all _9W66l rg'ILI rg 10 8000 8100 <,g/...- MARGARITA RD '1(" t' sgs/9>>- N N ~ ~~ "- l:t . PID PICD . ~ , " oiil o m;:l ~ g; 0.. ~ o o '" ~ --r------ I I 1 31 f;J1 ~I 01 tJl 2;1 0:11 I I I ........ '. ..."'" ~o'" ... ri-~~ " "It"NIl'l '- 09/7.9 " ,i, _99/Z0. '. .i.... r 6LZleL. : : m/,g ...J ...t.r : 'SOZ!Z9_'t, . ". Lr.Z/f.tt, ~m~ .: . C\llDN . ...................... ""'~ ",0" -"'- '. .'. ........ REDHAWK PKWY "--g./o. rOZ/Of: t .r COUNTRY ( GLEN WY Nm ..." ... " -" "'- '" .. ... " , "' " t N ... ! . "- ~ 0>'" r-- o o IX) to '" 12 :;l C\I ffll- ~ ~g I.:i~ i3 ~ (Y) 3alJ ~ ~CI) < ~ QB m :J u.. ::c ~ .2> ~ ~ ~ u.. f! 11. 51 ~~ :l! 6:i :s a:0( a 11. w ~ e! ~ ~ :i ~ o '" ~ N ",t 0'" .....'" ~G: ",t ......., 0>0 ~ ~;:; o::::l z ~ <<: , >- ~ . >- Vl . 0 00 z . u Vl u./ Z ;: u./ '" <<: '" . -l -l '" . I I Iii! 0 0> I 0" .MIa 1:S IX) fiI I ~:!ltOlId I~ :Q 5 .---~---.,e;j 0 t I"" c-.; ~ t ~ ~ I E':S r_, ...", ., h I ~" '-t I ;;;.~ CI:l I "" 1 PROJECT II.. h L.E!W · 0' I E:;I 01 ~ P-. ~~~;~ ;.:::e o I ::)< z ~ Bad >0 ~ ~~ ~ ::J ~:I: 0 .2> ~ g lL~Q. c fa::E !li! 6~ 5 d: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::) ::E a + (!J Z ! ...bi;,;:c;.... " ~s!;: ..........::::......... ~~~ " _,';:;'" '-- fLZ/1fZ ". .-II\,. _eeg/OK '. : ,1fg/e1. : :" ~~~::: ,tr : ", fLC/SLS, ~~g . CC1~ro ~~';;)- " ~~g ......:-..... U)OIt'l" .::t~'" ~IO:;:;' "- ~l " "'~ID ~CC1 _S9U/i:L ss~ ~B9 ..JI\,. ,m I"" ~,.,~ _09J~, , 31.500 ..JI\,. ,eL IDe 9b~~;6::: MARGARITA RD . 31,600 , 1"1,,' t (' ", 1>9 "t ... N au'.. ZO!n/CL./ ' I')NCJ) a'll -, H- ~~:n ..............~ I~" ............................... N~~ ~~2 pro PICO o o II) r-- I I liil Mia I _ .!?.!fO/Id : ~ --..,~ I"" I I 1 :;j;;; I ~ I ~~ ...m I PROJECT 7 '-- La I ~EI-!_...!1... ,L"/~~'_ I t (' COUNTRY I :;;6 GLEN WY I ~-~ "" ~~ -- ... ... ~ " N I t ,., :; ~ ... 8iil 0> .....:s ~ 13 ll., ~ .... " ~ en E-< o E:; o ~ P.., 0'" 0.... II) vI::! "':::> o II: I::! ~ ., t ... ~ " ,., " N 0)(;; r--- o o II) .f '" 13 REDHAWK PKWY . " 3= o ,.; ",I 0"" ......" ~... ",I ........., 0>0 ... Gi(; ",::J . . . The following is a discussion of the analysis methodology. 3.1 Methodology Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions that occur on a given roadway segment under various traffic vohune loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for unsignalized intersections and roadway segments, as described below. 3.1.1 Signalized Intersections Signalized intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was detennined using the methodology found in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HeM), using the Traffix (version 7.5) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection Level of Service (LOS). Table 3-1 summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections. Appendix C contains the intersection level of service ai1alysis sheets. TABLE 3-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (SecondsIV ehiclel Level or Service 0.0 .:" 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 21.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 2: 80.0 F Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. lINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) lLG Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum 14 3.1.2 Unsignalized Intersections . Unsigna1ized intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay and Levels of Service (LOS) was determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HeM), using the Traffix (version 7.5) computer software. Table 3-2 summarizes the delay thresholds for unsignalized intersections. TABLE 3-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE THREsHOLDS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECfIONS Average Control Delay Per Vehicle Level Of Service .' (SccondslVehicIe\ 0.0 :S 10.0 A 10.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 50.0 E > 50.1 F Source: HIghway CapaCity Manual. 2000. 3.1.3 Street Segments Street segment analySis is based upon the comparison of daily traffic volumes (ADTs) to the roadway capacity of the street segment. This table is included in Appendix D and provides Level of . Service estimates based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics from the City of Temecula Circulation Element. lINSCOTT.LAw & GREENSPAN. engineers ) ll.G Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendmn . 15 . 4.0 DE PORTOLA ROAD ACCESS RESTRICTION ANALYSIS 4.1 Existing Conditions and Planned Configuration This access scenario would have direct access to De Portola Road. Currently, De Portola Road is an east/west facility constructed as a two lane undivided roadway providing one lane of travel per direction with a general curb-to-curb width of 44 feet. Per the City of Temecula Circulation Element, the ultimate classification for De Portola Road is as a Modified Secondary Arterial. Based on the Circulation Element, De Portola Road is planned to be a four lane undivided roadway with a cross section of 70 feet within 88 feet of Right-of-Way (ROW). It should be noted that there are no plans to widen De Portola Road in the near future. 4.2 De Portola Road Capacity Figure 4-1a illustrates the existing + cumulative projects + project traffic volumes and Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show the analysis results for the De Portola Road Access Restriction. Appendix E contains a table, which includes street segments analyzed in the Temecula Medical Center Traffic Report (November 2004) in addition to De Portola Road and Margarita Road. Currently, De Portola Road is constructed a two-lane roadway. Since there are no immediate plans to widen De Portola Road to four lanes and the first phase of the project will most likely be completed prior to any widening, a conservative approach assuming project traffic is added to a two lane DePortola Road was conducted. . The City's goal for intersections and street segments is to operate at LOS D during the peak hours. Table 4-1 shows that LOS D or better is calculated at the key intersections for the existing and existing + cumulative projects scenarios during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following two intersections which are calculated to operate at below LOS D, without mitigation. . Margarita Road / SR 79 intersection (LOS F - AM & PM peak hours); and . SR 79/ Project Driveway (LOS F - AM & PM peak hours). For the existing + cumulative projects + project scenario, the planned mitigation (from the Temecula Medical Center Report) at the above referenced intersections was assumed in the analysis. Therefore, all key intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. . Table 4-2 shows the analysis results for the key street segments. Based on existing roadway capacities for each street segment, the De Portola Road street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better (LOS D is the minimum LOS based on City standards), indicating that De Portola Road would be able to accommodate the additional traffic projected by the proposed project. The maximum ADT the project adds to De Portola Road is 1,700 trips for the De Portola Road Access Restriction. The Dartola Road Access Alternative adds a maximum project ADT of 1,150 to De Portola Road. u.ciCOTT.lAW & GREENSPAN, engineers ) LLG Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum 16 Margarita Road is forecasted to operate at LOS E on a daily basis with the addition of cumulative . and project traffic. The various access alternatives add a similar amount of traffic to Margarita Road. No access alternative is superior to another in terms of potential impacts to Margarita Road. The proposed access point to De Portola Road is located as far as possible from Pio Pico Road. Outbound project traffic would not utilize Pio Pico Road since outbound left-turns onto De Portola Road would be prohibited. While it would be possible for project inbound traffic to utilize De Portola Road, this is not expected to occur. Southbound Margarita Road traffic would need to drive out of direction by turning right onto Pio Pico Road and then left (back eastbound) on De Portola Road to then access the site. This would require more travel time than simply turning right onto De Portola Road from Margarita Road and then left into the site. In addition, the only drivers who would even remotely consider using Pio Pico Road are drivers who travel to the site every day. No significant impacts to Pio Pico Road would occur. . lJNSCOTT,LAW & GREENSPAN. engineers ) llG R<:f. ).{)4-14Q3 Temecula Medical Center Addendum . 17 . ...." ",~.. '" rof.18 ...Ir'... It') 0 It') ..".. ;::-~:;;.. '--get I.eg 1'-1.')(0 -L9uba ji\.. ,<0. /"'" t 33.400 SL /09 J j,{ARGARITA RD zzz,/oao ~ "'t,r ., /.. J 8t /L~ -. m\m~ ema/9gB- 2c;,j~ elL /S9 ...... '" _m'" "''''m . Pro PICO D ~ ~ '" . DOl ~ r- 10 . Mia as '" ...... JO/n .L:J:ilfOlld <0 ;:; .-------.., 0 tr I I>: ~o .~ ;1;'" r_, I " - I ~ ~:g h I ,...N..... tI1 .... """-I IOrJOI r" I '" VJ. ION'" I ~~O) '--LB /9L L.. IPROJECT I "'~ 1 - L 1<< .,-. D' hu '" .. , lO'/'OI O. I- '" r_, I aO.b"J _ I <<;.- >-:, I aL /00 , o ~ 0.. "'-89 /091 _L9B/~lL ,aL /oa 33.500 lihlr < fDO~ ~~Z....... o C""ON e-,o....o ~ - - "'''' ".. '" " m'" "" '" ~I,. ~ ~~ <0... "'I>: o 0.. .. ~ 00 "':/ '" " ...'" "'0 ... _O/Ll 'I ,a/. '" t --r------ ooh'-I....,r 4S/llS, . /" If I"'''' ,..... ,..m 81 ffil ~I 01 tJl :<::1 ~I I I I ........ ."ClUltO 00'" "'-.. .......z....... 010,.... o. ~:g~ '- CLZ/Lfl o. .- _ 989!OtS : ...I j I,. , S99/oa9 : : 90.I'LlJ ,Ir : V96/00!;- meaQ 0.. GLC/SlS .., ~ ~ r:=. . '" ........................ .' :8l=i;;; ." "'~':l..' ..- . REDHAWK PKWY COUNTRY ,lrGLEN WY 0"'0 _",m -"'- '" .........., 0"''' -..... N~"" I ... " " '" ..... '" " O>~ r----'" D. IX) ~ as <0 ~~ z ~ a .; ~ ",I 0'" ,S! ~"-- ",I ,,.-, 010 ... ~9 "'--' as CD Z{!! ~ ~ ~ ~~ I~ I :) 0 vg~: ~ ~ ~~ I :J ~ f3~ C) 8ii1 g -- b ~ll. fa U. ~ c:E ~ o a:ll. :S IE :s~ 8 ;;~ m bO wll. ~~ ll. ~ ~ :) :E B + ~ i= CD ~ z ~ .... "" , .... e. 0 0 oil on . u Z " V> W Z ;: W On .::; "" '" ....J c:!) " . . Eristing+ Existing Existing Existing + Cumulative Intersection Control Peak Cumulative Projects Projects + Type Hoar Project Delay' WS' .Delay LOS Delay WS AM' 23.2 C 23.7 C 25.0 C De Portola RoadlMargarita Road SIGNAL PM 26_8 C 43.6 D 45.3 D OWSC' AM DNE N/A DNE N/A 9.7 A De Portola RoadlProject Driveway PM DNE N/A DNE N/A 13.8 B Margarita Road/Dartola Road AM 18.0 B 20.0 B 23.2 C SIGNAL PM 12.6 B 13.3 B 13.5 B AM 42.7 D > 100.0- F 53.8 Dd Margarita RoadlSR 79 SIGNAL 1>" PM 52.5 D > 100.0 F S4.5 SR 79/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way - AM > 100.0 F >100.0 F 29.8 c' OWSC 1>" PM >100.0 F >100.0 F 53.7 TABLE 4-1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS - (DE PORTOLA ROAD ACCESS REsTRICTION) . Footnutes: a. Avmge delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. c. OWSC - One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major streetleft-tum in delay is reported. d. LOS with plaimed mitigation. DNE. mterscction docs Dot exist oWSC _ One-Way Stiop Controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay is reported. SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED DElA YILOS THRESHOLDS DElAYILOS THRESHOLDS Delay illS Delay illS 0.0 < 10.0 A 0.0 < 10.0 A to.t to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E > 80.1 F > SO.1 F lINSCOTI.l.Aw & GREENSPAN. engineefS ) UG Ref. 3-04-t403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum . 19 . . . Table 4-2 Segment Onerations - (De Portola Road Access Restriction) Existing + EDsting+ Existing Capacity Existing Cumulative Cnmulative Projects Street Segment . (LOSE)' Projects + Project ADT' LOS' ADT LOS ADT LOS ~ Portola Road west of Pia Pico Road 14,000 6,600 C 7,500 C 9,220 D East: ofPio Pico Road 14,000 7,000 " C 7,900 C 9,620 D Margarita Road De Portola Road to Dartola Road 36,000 23,500 B 31,500 D 33,400 E Janola Road to SR 79 36,000 23,500 B 31,600 D 33,500 E Footnotes; a. City ofTemecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum WS threshold (Appendix D). b. Average Datly Tmffic Volurres. c. level of Service. lINSCOTT.LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) ILG Ref 3-04-t403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum 20 5.0 DARTOLA ROAD ACCESS ALTERNATIVE (ACCESS TO MARGARITA ROAD VIA DARTOLA ROAD) 5.1 Access to Margarita Road via Dartola Road Tables 5-1 and 5-2 show the analysis results for the Dartola Road access alternative. Based on the City's goal for intersections and street segments to operate at LOS D during the peak hours, Table 5- I shows that LOS D or better is calculated at the key intersections for the existing and existing + cumulative projects scenarios during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following two intersections which are calculated to operate at below LOS D. . . Margarita Road / SR 79 intersection (LOS F - AM & PM peak hours); and . SR 79/ Project Driveway (LOS F - AM & PM peak hours). For the existing + cumulative projects + project scenario, the planned mitigation (from the Temecula Medical Center Traffic Report) at the above referenced intersections was assumed in the analysis. Therefore, the all intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 5-2 shows the De Portola Road street segments are calcUlated to operate at LOS D or. better on a daily basis. The Margarita Road street segments are calculate!l to operate at LOS E' on a daily basis with the addition of cumulative project and project traffic. Providing access via Dartola:Road . as opposed to De Portola Road would result in about 550 fewer ADT on De Portola Road.' The Dartola Road access alternative adds a maximum project ADT of 1,150 to De Portola Road, while the De Portola Road access restriction adds approximately 1,700 ADT to De Portola Road. Figure 5-1b illustrates the existing + cumulative projects + project traffic volumes. 5.2 Advantages f Disadvantages of Dartola Road Access Alternative It should be noted that the opening of Dartola Road as a through access from the project site:to Margarita Road will degrade operations at this intersection, which currently experiences southbound and northbound traffic queues on Margarita Road of more than 300 feet. These queues commence at the SR 79/Margarita Road intersection and extend north past the Dartola RoadlMargarita Road signalized intersection, adding delay to both intersections. The spacing between these two intersections is only approximately 300 feet and only 9a-foot left-ttu:n pockets are prbvidedon Margarita Road. The minimum spacing between signalized intersections on a road such as Margarita Road is approximately 600 feet. It should be noted that the Dartola Road access alternative scenario would not add traffic to Pio Pico Road. LINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN. engineelS ) u.o Ref. 3-04.1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum . 21 . TABLE 5-1 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS -(DARTOLA ROAD ACCESS ALTERNATIVE) I Existing + Existing Existing + Cumulative IntenectioD Control Peak Existing Cumulative Projects Projects + Type Hour Project Delay' LOS' DeJay LOS Delay . LOS AM 23.2 C 23.7 C 25.1 C De Portala RoadlMargarita Road SIGNAL PM 26.8 C 43.6 D 45.1 D AM DNE N/A DNE N/A DNE N/A De Portola RoadlProject Driveway OWSC' PM DNE N/A DNE N/A DNE N/A .. AM 18.0 B 20.0 B 26.1 C Margarita RoadIDartola Road SIGNAL PM 12.6 .B 13.3 B. 25.3 C , AM 42.7 D >100.0 F 53.8 Dd MaJgarita RoadlSR 79 SIGNAL Dd PM 52.5 D > 100.0 F 54.8 AM >100.0 F > 100.0 F 27.4 c' Sit 79/Project Driveway/Counlly Glen Way OWSC Dd PM > ioo.o F > 100.0 F 51.6 . L FtJotnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. level of Serviee. e. OWSC - One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major s1rcet left-tum in deby is reported.. d. WS with planned- mitigation. . DNE - Intersection does not exist. OWSC - One-Way Stiop Controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay is reported. SIGNAUZED DELAY!LOS TllRESHOWS .Delay !.OS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.t to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to S5_0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.1 F . LINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers 22 UNSIGNAUZED DELAYII.OS TllRESHOWS Delay !.Os 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.t to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 50.0 E > 50.1 F ) un Ref. 3-M-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum s o Table 5-2 (D I R dA AIt . ) seement JDerations- ano a oa ccess ernative Existing + Existing + Cumulative Existing Capacity Existing Cumulative ProJeets Street Segment (LOS E) . Projects + Pro eet . ADT" LOS' ADT LOS ADT LOS De Portola Road West ofPio Pico Road 14,000' 6,600 C 7,500 C 8,650 D j!ast of Pia Pico Road 14,000' 7,.000 C 7,900 C 9,050 D Margarita Road De Portala Road to DartoJa Road 36,OOOc 23,500 B 31,500 D 34,365 E Dartola Road to SR 79 36,00.0' 23,500 B 31,600 D 34,465 E Fooblotes: a. City ofTemccula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City mioimum LOS threshold (Appcudix D). b. AVCnlge Daily 1i"affic Volumes. c. Level of Service. LINSCOTT. LAw & GREENSPAN. engineers ) LLG Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum 23 . . . ........ Il)OIt) N....v ~~~ '- stt 1t9 ~~~ "-89 /S9L f::::<01O _9SU/W9 COr')O -06l/.SOU :3'" , ZL~ /all .)11,. ,"'/<9' .) ~ I,. 34,365 t 34.465 SL /109 .,) MARGARiTA RD L9Z' Z90L - t t S /tL ,~,,(" ~~s~~, ~ )oc" r<"IN~ S6t /Z6L -, :!-~ ~';;)-~.. ~~~ N~1t) v_n - - - I I I~ 10 '" I." <0 ". '0"" I') J:i1 I... ~ ~ h I~ ~ '-< I'" (f) 1 .[::! 1 l"-ca- ~ h I 1f)~0I r, I ,~....... '-J 1lJlO'lI" r.....' J 5?~cn "-L9/9L t::l IPRDO~CT ,,\. _9 1<< o L.!~_"2'" ,lOl/'61 (\.> I 6>I/LS.,) ....... I "I> - u.. I 9<'/ZS, I . . Pro PICD . o 10 <0 IX) . o~ 8:5 010 ... ~ '" f:l ~.. "'00 ... ,~ -~ ~'" " _a/s~ ,'1' ,a/> ... t --r------ ~z~:'~I" 06/S<, I"'''' " I"''' ~I ~I ::>1 0., 01 l'J1 :.;1 ,>jl I I I t :;j '" " ~ 0)00 r---'" o <0 <Xl IX) 10 .o(l.)WID~ ~~ or- ~~~ffi !i! .t.. 3 ~alS 0 ..." g a:(I.) ~ Q~~~ CD lL 41(0 2 :J ~ mJ: :s 0) O~ ~ .- b~n. ~ LL W C:::E ~ (3 a: Q:: IE :s~ +0 13i wC (3 a: n. w ~ :;) :::E :;) o + C!l Z ti ~ .......... .'"<aCOlO """ "'0'" 6~~ N~~ '-- ra/L~ "', ITI _SOUZLS : ... t '" , _/a.. : : 9o>ILL!.,) ,t, . '. V9S/0OS- a:llIOO ',.o6rILtS, :se~ -.. .......~....... ". :;~~. .... ......~.~.':1... .' REDHAWK PKWY COUNTRY ,I, GLEN WY "'''0 NIC)OI -"'- " ~~~ ..."... N~_ ~ ;c o .ci ~ ",t 0"'. ,S! ~... ",I ,,,, mO ... ~(; ",:J z " ,.. '" - ,.. "- . 0 oil '" . v z '" ;: w '- Z w '" '" '" " --' --' '" . . 6.0 ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT (ACCESS TO DE PORTOLA ROAD FOR PHASE I AND ACCESS TO DE PORTOLA ROAD AND DARTOLA ROAD FOR PHASE II) 6.1 Project Phase I Analysis - Access to De Portola Road An alternative analysis was conducted to assess the potential for impacts due to Phase I of the project. This alternative ass).1Il1es the same access points as the De Portola Road access restriction option. These access points would include access to SR 79 and access to De portola Road but the access to De Portola Road would be limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound left- turns would be prohibited. Tables 6-1 and 6-2 show the analysis results for the Project Phase I De Portola Road access alternative. Based on the City's goal for intersections and street segments to operate at LOS D during the peak hours, Table 6-1 shows that LOS D or better is calculated at the key intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours with mitigation. Table 6-2 shows the De Portola Road street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D on a daily basis. However, the Margarita Road street segments are calculated to operate at LOS E on a daily basis with the addition of cumulative project and project traffic. Figure 6-1 illustrates the existing + cumulative project + project phase I traffic volumes. 6.2 Total Project Analysis - Access to De Portola Road and Dartola Road . This alternative analyzes the intersection and street segment operations with the project providing access to both De Portola Road and Dartola Road in addition to access to SR 79. Tables 6-3 and 6-4 show the analysis results for the Total Project Alternative. Based on the City's goal for intersections and street segments to operate at LOS D during the peak hours, Table 6-3 shows that LOS D or better is calculated at the key intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours with mitigation. Table 6-4 shows the De Portola Road street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D on a daily basis. However, the Margarita Road street segments are calculated to operate at LOS E on a daily basis with the addition of cumulative project and project traffic. Figure 6-2 illustrates the existing + cumulative project +.project phase I traffic volumes. LINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) llG Ref: 3-04-t403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum . 25 . . . TABLE 6-1 !'ROJECT ALTERNATIVE !'ROJECT PHASE I INTERSECTION OPERATIONS (AcCESS TO DE PORTOLA ROAD) Control Peak Existing + Cumulative Projects Intersection Type Hour + Project Phase I Delay' LOS' AM 22.0 C De Portola RoadtMargarita Road SIGNAL . PM 38.2 D OWSC AM 9.7 A De Portola RoadlProject Driveway PM 13.2 B AM 17.9 B Margarita RoadIDartola Road SIGNAL PM 12.6 B AM 53.8 Dd Margarita RoadISR 79 SIGNAL Dd PM 54.9 AM 22.5 C" SR 79/Project Driveway/Counl1yGlen Way SIGNAL Dd PM 46.6 F.otnotn: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. c. QWSC - One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left-turn in delay is reported. d. LOS with planned notigation. . SIGNAIlZED UNSIGNAIlZED DEI.A YILOS TIlRESHOlDS DEl.AYILOS TIlRESHOlDS Delay LOS Delay IDS 0_0 < 10.0 A 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 1O.~ to 15.0 B 20.1 to 3.5.0 C 15.1 tD 25.0 C 35. t to 55.0 D 25. t to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E > 80.1 F > 50.1 F LINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) ll.G R<:f. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum 26 Existing Capacity Existing + Cumulative Projects Street Segment (LOS E) . + Project Phase I ADT" WS' 10. Portol.. Road Iwest of Pia Pico Road 14,000' 8,440 D ~ of Pia Pico Road 14,000' 8,840 D lMargarita Road De Portola Road to Dartola Road 36,000' 32,570 E Dart~la Road to SR 79 36,000' 32,670 E TABLE 6-2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE PROJECT PHAsE I SEGMENT OPERATIONS (ACCESS TO DE PORTOLA ROAD) . Footnotes: a. City ofTemecula LOS E capacity is shown. but LOS D is the City ~ LOS threshold (Appendix OJ. b. Average Dally Traffic Volumes. c. Level of Service. . LINSCOTT. LAw & GREENsPAN, engineers ) llG Ref. 34!-1403 Temecula Medical Center . 27 . . . (!l g '" 0 z ,.oi;":::;'" ". o~~ "'0'" ..........,......... .- '" m~~ ~ rLZ/',Z'. "'~'" ~-,., _B99/otS -, ../11,. , rS9/.S9 : : 90./."..) ,fr " t9s/oos- I ". LLr/llS, m...<< O_m ~-'" '. .......:~........ .- "'0'" ......'" ",~... -,.,0 Z~.:t '-- srI. 1f.9 ;::-~6 ~1l9/\:9' "'-<< "'N,., f::~~ _SiU/59L ~,.,o '. .......:-.... ../11,. ,W /.l. ../!C -lrn~J.J.J. ,BL 09 32.570 32.670 OL /09 ..) MARGARITA RD REDHAWK OZZl./tl6- PKWY cr /6" )f r " /t9 ..) ,fr U:acIlN 9OSl/t9U - "'0- CON~ au /gg -, N_'" ,.-,..... ............... ",,,,N ~mN ~.-~ ,.,"'m I m'" I ,.,N Iii! N :;;:.~ 0 Ol ~... I 10 "' N ~ts/9' 1:S II,. co ..., _AlIa J.:)ZfO!1d I ~ .....1:l fr ------..,~ co:::> 0 ~~ IQ l>: '" I 1:l ~~ ~'" I ~ I ~-- '" ~ "'~m ,., oii! I ........~........ I ~... ...... ~om ~ L9 /9L m~ ..... [J) IPROJECT ../11,. 00;S _t IL 000 LD;W , L"/L6' .... h I i3 LOl/l9..) COUNTRY '" 0 I 8 Il- ,fr GLEN WY I <:a/Ol, -~o [:l E:; ~"'m I "'- "';;;-~...... N'" 0 ":"""r--. Pro PIca ......0)_ ~ ~ m", 0... -'" -.to ,., N 00 .....;;,. __9/m ~t; N ,9/ , ../1 wff r,-r- - K;g.-~ f I,~ . ~ :ll IN", ~ 81 "'I 0> ~ ~ r-- ",I 01 tJl ~: 0 '" I IX) ~ 10 I cO - I co ",I 0<0 ......Q -.... ",I >- ......,., >- ",0 Soil ... G:i(; ~5: ",=I - << ...J ...J 28 oy- C/)C/)/!!. ~ I WC/)r- <O.:e8W~ 3 0 o<~ ::J <D >cC/) (3 '- oa:~ fa ::J ~:so :! .2> ~~i ~ LL ;;:;~o. ~ ~w::!! ~ fC~ ~ a: 0.. + ~ J :e J o + (!J Z ti ~ I1J > ~ a: ~ 6 w 3 a: 0.. z ~ << - ~ c '" c Z ~ w '- w '" '" . '" ~ ExistiDg + Intersection Control Peak Cumulative Projeels + Type Hour Total Project Delay' Los" AM 22.7 C De Portola RoadIMargarita Road SIGNAL PM 43.4 D AM 9.6 A De Portola RoadIProject Driveway OWSC' PM 13.4 B AM 24.0 C Margarita RoadIDartola Road SIGNAL PM 25.7 C AM 53.0. Dd Margarita Road/SR 79 SIGNAL Dd PM 54.6 AM 25.4 C' SR 791Project Driveway/Country Glen Way SIGNAL Dd PM 52.1 I TABLE 6-3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TOTAL PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS (ACCESS TO DE PORTOLA ROAD & DARTOLA ROAD) . . Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.. b. Level of Service.. c. OWSC- One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left-turn in delayi, reported. d. LOS witlmlitigation ofa traffic signal and other conditioned intersection improvements. SlGNAUZED UNSIGNAUZED DElAY/LOS TIIRESHOLDS DElAY/LOS 11IRESHOLDS Delay WS Delay WS 0.0 < 10.0 A 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B to.1 to 15.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to SO.O E > 80.1 F > 50.1 F lINSCOTT,LAw & G~AN. engineers ) lLG Ref. 3-04-1403 TemecuJa Medical Center . 29 . . . TABLE 6-4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TOTAL PRo.iEcr SEGMENT OPERATIONS (ACCESS TO DE PORTOLA ROAD & DARTOLA ROAD) Existing Capacity Existing + Cnmnlative Projects Street Segment (LOS E) . + Total Project ADT" LOS' ~e Portola Road !west ofPio Pico Road 14,000' 9,220 D !last ofPio Pica Road 14,000' 9,620 D ~argarita Road De Portola Road to Dartola Road 36,000' 34,400 E Dartol. Road to SR 79 36,000' 33,090 E Footnotes: a.. City ofTemecuJa WS E capacity is shown. but WS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D). b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. c. Level of Service. LlNSCOTT,LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers ) LLG Ref. 3-<l4-1403 Temecula Medical Center 30 ~o~ ~~D ~~. ~ N~. ~;;-...... '- ~9 l;t ~~a . ,...,.,:g _8LU/69L Q)"'O '--e9 1.r9 .)I\,. , t9Z /9" .)1'- ~'rlll$,t, . t 35470 t""' ZZ1/\:9' SL 109 ,.' 34160 Lm/9oo1 ~ MARGARITA RD . 99 I.., --, ,t r .. 1t9 J 't,. ~O>>N gogt/08U _ ,r _N~ stL /LG ........ ~~~ a............... ' .......... IOm~ ...................... ... CDlt)N ..-~ - - 0", ~r>: 0:S -~ @i 0.. [!l ~ ........ [() h (.) ~ o ~ Q.., Pro PlCOe ID ~- ~o '" N " ..N ~~ _ u/S:l ~ ,9/. .)1 "/rT..:;r~---- .1',I,r Wl/W, IN" I~';O- ~: 5;1 01 nl ~: I I I - e - ... ~ ~ ~ ~ " 0.- .....N o ID ,.., o ..... 31 ....... ....~.... -'. ,.,~~ ". N.....~ . ,;""" "- 00,... . N~~ '- fa/trZ "'. .)~\,. 7~~~~~ " :.. m~m::!. ,tr . ".ur/ne;. ~a~ ". WN"" ~, ~!;;:S1 . ." ". ......~':"1..... .' REDHAWK PKWY t ~~ ~ ~mg ~ CO ::)0< 5~aes Q) >00 ... ga:!5 :J ~:s~ ::l! .Q> ~g~ a LL b~Q. ~ Waes::::!: ~ ~ol!: .Q.a:~ ~~ gg +0. Ww ~o :5 ~ G + CJ ~ . ~ UJ ~ ~ ~ b W a B: " ;c o N ",I 0'" ......!!! -.... ",I ........, ",0 ~ j;j1> ",::J z ~ >- <( - f-- ~ . :3"" '" . z " '" ~ w Z ~ w '" .::; <( '" -' '" " . 1 '" I f;l~ ;;;!!.. I~ 0" . I e 0) jl:. '- 09/.. I :s ;t <- _ Al/l!. J.:}:;rro/Id I g lJ) ~ tr --I~ ID g ~~ I'" r>: '" ~co I ~ r--m ~ - I ~ I 2:3;;; rn I ......~ (O~':;:- I mt<)O) tpROJECT [:; "-- L9 19L I...D/W .)~\,. 7~..m, I -- I ~i'~9tJ ,t COUNTRY I 6'l/~S~ o'...C GLEN WY _",m I .....~..... "............... ~~;: Nm_ . 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis conducted for this addendum, no level of service related impacts were calculated at the key access points or street segments. for either the De Portola Road access restriction or the Dartola Road access alternative with the planned mitigation measures implemented, with tine exception (Margarita Road segment, see below). It should be noted that regarding the Dartola Road access alternative, Dartola Road is located too close (only about 300 feet) to SR 79 at its signalized intersection with Margarita Road alid queues on Margarita Road already extend past Dartola Road under current conditions. Adding traffic to this intersection by providing project access via Dartola Road would create longer queues that would negatively impact operations at the SR 79/Margarita Road intersection, and add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection then are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection, thus long queues form. If the traffic signal was removed in the future at the Margarita RoadJDartola Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartola Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make tIlls location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from SR 79 as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. . In addition, the analysis shows that there would be only a small positive impact to De Portola Road if direct site access is not provided to De Portola Road with about 550 fewer ADT. The analysis shows that De Portola Road can accommodate the additional project generated traffic with the De Portola access scenario. The alternative analysis in which access is provided to De Portola Road for Phase I and to both De Portola Road and Dartola Road for the total project shows very similar results to the Dartola Road aCcess alternative. This alternative also has potential operation issues since the Dartola Road access point to Margarita Road is located too close to SR 79. The segment of Margarita Road between De Portola Road and SR 79 is calculated to operate at WS E with the addition of project and cumnlative traffic and therefore the project is calculated to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on Margarita Road. This impact occurs for all access scenarios. Mitigation consisting of providing additional turn lanes at the SR 79/Margarita Road intersection (which were recommended in the November 2004 traffic study) would mitigate the cumulative impact by decreasing delay at the key intersection along the subject portion of Margarita Road. It should also be noted that removing the existing traffic signal at the Dartola RoadlMargarita Road intersection would also help in alleviating the significant cumulative impact on Margarita Road byallowing free flow operations for north/south traffic between De Portola Road and SR 79. . lINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers > ll.G Ref_ 3-Q4..1403 Temecula Medical Center 32 . . . ApPENDIX A MANUAL PEAK HOUR AND ADT TRAFFIC VOLUME SHEETS LINSCOTT, lAw & GREENSPAN. engineers ~ lLG Ref. 3-()4-14Q3 Temecula Medical Center Addendum N:\I40Y.Rn=J..Rp;IJte,.ised-T1;b\Appmdi>;-Ccwer Pap.doc 00 ~~I!) S m_ocotO VT-(")""C\I 0 000 <0 U') (0 10 l;") NO.,....~" -;; . '<1''<1'0 0 t")..,.V.....~ V",,"V ~ .... '" (')(,)C\I ~ C\lC\I-- 1!)0t::: OO.......T""" ci.'" .....(OOC\lC>> g}NOMc) CD U) a.- C\l.....NN...... NMM;:: '" ,0 (I)<D(I) ..~ E-o-o (1jO~Z Z01::(I) ." 1" ocomvom coCJ)(")....m "'-'" ~$m~ ..." '" .,..:_ ..........v ..... .....NLO ~rtiM ._0- ..... oc j'( LL(/)(/)Q.. a:~ 0 0.0 :@Cii ~ q:O.........lO...... MNll)N~ CD_'" "," ~ -go OW -;:- Oll)t:OlOt-.M CO_Nom "''''''' :3 . '" ...............C") iCCC\ir= '" ci... I'LO......vM ro~:::a~fZ '" "! !t~ _M'<tMM '" 1;; ...-..............1.0 .,...................U) 0 - . . I'- C\I _ '<I' (/) ro <D ' ~ a=: -5<>>0(") ::J.....-v..-- OeOO) CfJmC\lT""" Q)>O>~ 0<(<( X .- (I) (1j <=COLL Q) -- - (/)"'(1) (1j:2:21O _(")00) "'1'-(1)'<1' Ol'--a~ 00>--10 ~ 0> 1ii (') ~ en ~ ~ -0 '" o 0::: o o 1:: '" ~ 0 1:'~ o1l 0(0)-0 01'-'" o1l:2C\10 ~ C\lO::: ~cr.i~cd - ..O.t::: o >. ~ m"'" i..: ci~ Q)"'OZrn ..c2"'O:2 -c::~ (Qi:Jrn"" Q)OOO 3:om.3 - -g .E omc:omcov 0"0 OJ.,.... .............<0 CI:5CC ",0 .~~- ~5 ::l ocor)....mm .....z 1: .,..:o>oomO) ~ I- .....- C') - .;:: OC\l..,.".....O ~ .,..:..........N.....r-.. '0 " e Cl -0 J!l c it 1\ " e --:::- C!)~"O '5 :3tOl'--d'JVre ~ 5 0: o ~ ~ :--- 1::ID :;, Oc;?N.....C')ll) ~~ ~ ~ ..... ci.'" a.- ..{!. M(Ot"lvCD .........NN..... C')'<tU).....C') ...."'0 ....C\I.....C\I,..... MN..i -- ..... (") 10 00..... ""'1<0 o oco.... 0 o . . .......- ....'<:1" ","'" ....'" It)......O.....(') ~"i"l .........C\lN...... _~'l;t ~N~~m ;'! ,0 -.;t....C\ICOIO --'" -- '" '" . . U)_ '" NNll)V~ "'-'" Nt60 - - '" q:Vr-.......t--Ul ",",comoo u)CDU) " _M - __U) CQcdN .... .. ci.s o:J-.:t OCO 0 ,,'It....C)..... co U) .....CO............LO v.....C')T'"".... ,.: a.o NC\lNN~ NNNC\lC>> ~ ...... U) ." - 1" ~~ggJ~~ T""f'o,......lt>v "'CD'" "." '" (")C\IC\1C'l..... ~;:cD oc - - a: " j'( s.8 '-.J::.f---- ig,'S :::J OCHry,....<Ot!) .....O'ltOlO -....'" ..... 0 ..... .0)ll)C')C').... .....coo......<o '" . . a:l U) (5; ........ C\J C\I C\J CD C\l....C\J....t-- ",U)CD ::; -"''' ,--- ~ oCO....'lI''lI' U') U')t--COvN ........ ". - -'" VC'J""; .... - ~ og~g~g i= Mr:..:r:..:r:.:':':~ r lLOOOO '" Iii g~g~19 g~gg~ 19** ~-ag "C c..~ :a 0. -" Cl - "iij ~ ~ ci.'" ~~ I--- "C 1" ro." .Q> oc a: a: " .9.2 I--- 00 16" ~ OW ~ f-;:- :3 ci... 0.15 ...... ." I--- "." 1" oc .Q> a: " a: ",0 ~i? f-- ta" " e>o .2 "'z :;; .... ~ .... ci... ~~ f-;:- -g-g "' '" (t" j'( 0 0.0 ~ cU; 16" .2 o~ .... .-;::- :3 ci.'" a.- ..~ ." - "'" 1" oc 0> a:~ j'( ..0 _.0 ".:.r= - "'- 0>" " _ 0 .2 "'lIl :;; .... -;:- . 0; .... " E i= " .!9 (/) '" 0 ~ "'... ....... CD ci '" 0 lIlO '" '" "'~ ci 0>0.. '" vai.... - U) 00_ 0> ....~ ..CDU) '" ",. 0 '" '" 0 iO 0 ~ .... ........ ... ..'" U) - _CD ci (; '" U) CD ~ rDC'J.... ..-- C; o '0 v;t.... "'...... .... ....criC'll 0'" '" '" 0 '" '" ..'" '" '" "'''' '" ci "'CDO> ... N~ .."'.... M -.,; "''''.... .... ",0 ",- U) .. '" 0 CD 0 "'0 .... .... "'U) 0 '" "'''' ci ~C1!&l 0 -- M ...."'.... '" ~~~ III '" 7ii " a. ~ :g ~C'1v aU').... U') -- - 0" r:..: 00 0 '" OCQ)'EQ)o"';ll)5 E:8EmEt)EEo 00.2 22 m.r=.2 <<I u:Q)OlDOLLO)OlL 5~>a..~.:aI>~ oc Mm Q) :c- ;":0.. a.. 7ii 0 " a. 00 ~ ~ LO 000 vvO <')<')(\1 C\/C\/r::: LOO..... OOf'--.C\I 0>0>0> E" <ti 0 CllOOZ ZOt::O> ..Q12Cll9> ._0- _ \\,1 [LWWQ.. r--- C\/ _ V '" 10 .0> ' =: g :Eo>o<') ::]::J"d"- 0c;00> ooQ)C\J,... >0><0 0><( ~ .go><(~ C:c;O[L 0>.- . WCllO> Cll::2::9LO _(t)CI)m Cllr---lDV o r---.x 10 om~6 t:;:;: en ;;; CI) ~ m ~ ~ " Cll o 0: o o t:: Cll ~ 0 i::'~ 0/1 oom" or--- Cll 0/I::2:C\/0 ~ C\/l!: al . , mOO,... co - ..0:= O>-..a; ..moo> ~"z ~ 0>0> Cll ..c:_,,::2: -c;~ as:::J co:" 0>000 3:om.3 . o 1 0u~1 ~ IIT~%I I 24~ 481 :"ftrt T Le~ ~s ~j :a 1.." -/= ~ .if ~ €, ~H~ .-[ . ~/:-> -~ ~~ .s. ,,~ ~ ~h n ~ 15" ~g e ..~ OV CJ _0 :1, nL I~&: Ita ~O~ II>>' I .1 __ . 1 ~ co ~ II?IO~ UI ro . . ~~ ~~Il) 000 vvo C')C')t\J t\Jt\J- Il)ot::: oot---T"""" GlGlGl E-oCijo ",ooz ZOt::Gl GlGl",Ol =.-:::......co: u..CI)CI)(L . r--- t\J _ V '" ex> Gl ' 3: g -5GlOC') ::J::::JV- ceCO> C/)Q)C\J-r- >0><0 Gl<( ~ o <( X .- Gl '" l::cOu.. Gl'- - (1)"'Gl ",:2;:Q1l) -(1)(1)0> "'r---GlV O......~O? o O)...J 0 ti:: 0> Cii C') ~ ~ I- en ~ ~ . '0 '" o eI: o o t:: '" ~ 0 ~~ 0/1 000>'0 Or--- '" o/I:2;t\Jo ~ t\JeI: '" . , Q)C/JT"'""tU O ..o."'=' >- ~ !D .: '" .. 0 C) ~'Oz~ GlGl '" ..c-"'O~ -c~ (tj J co:" 0>000 ~O!D.3 - i]! -0 l- '- ::ita 00 .E;I- t').....MNO> 0(') On.,tt) It)lOl.Oll)T- '" mc:;~Of6 'V1O\t)f6.,.. '" - ::ita vOO(\ICO 015 ill I- cim tOvr-.COC") 0..(5 '<tC")IO"<t~ <I- - .g ~OOO.....,.... "0 .. ""0 Q. oc_ 0: 6: ..... OO>COOU':lr-., 12-g -5.,..;.........."'N(I) ~ gj OC OW ::l O(f)ll)(\l(')C") .c .,..: ...... I- - .t::= a"<tC')CCO(') ~ .,..:C\J....t\lt\lCO ci... 0.- <~ (00)00"'" oC")r-.cnv NNC\lNlD - -0 {g qooooo ~U 8!. a: 5-- s.8 E o-.;t.....C\fC\lO> _~._~ Q) ..,...:O::tVU)C")CO ~t:: - ..... JOlOO: eiuz- C}~ 2 q::~~a;~ -6 ~..-...................!CO $ - .!: :: ooU)l.().....co a: ~ ""':C\lC\lN"-CO " " e Cl 0... 0.15 <I- C\lNO....r.o VlOU)U)(J) -- .g C?vooov "0 ..- .."0 Q. oC_ 0:.8 ..... o CO (J) to"'" CO .Q..... a .,..:................<0 o CI) .- ".. a: ~~---;- o....v (')<D V 1:""; .... C\I I- - 1ii ~~~n~re8 ..J _ ciS 0.0 <I- C')<oco(')co OO..-ON NNC\lN<O - "U .g qooo......_ ~-g ~ ..... a:,,_ fllE E o<oN.........m =l:..c 0) ..,..:('\IN.........,.... ~"5 [C ~o_ ~U) 2 cqg;e~m~ t= ..-................ co -- .::= ONOlCO.....W ll> ...... .........U') ..J - ~ ~~~~~~ ~ .f~~~~l- .. ii5 .....tnOOtO v....co'Vo LDtoLOI()~ I"--lt).....r-..o (').........(')0) ll)U>lOlt)C\1 '" '<tomC')(O ..................v lOU)It)C")(JJ ....o'<tC\lt-- ..........mNO) C\lNN....CO (Ovlt)VlD ....OI'--Lt)<O (\1(0)........0;) f;;~an~~ (\lNNNO 00000 (0"',......,.... (")~l{)C")~ MCO(") <0 0 o....como C\IN..........aJ 0)......0<0...... ........C\I....,.... t;;co~~dt; NOOO(\l N(")CO<Dm ....N........<O <O,..C\lCO...... '" ~1?&l1?C5 NI()t-Ov m~..........<o ....NC\lC\laJ ....010......,.. ~~~m;1; C\lN~,...l{) <0.... CD COIC) ....C\I........r-- IC)~C\Io:::tl() ...................... LO OJ.OOU'lm '? ':: S'\! "~:i:>o ~~~~l-- '" '" ~ '" ... ... ... '" '" ... ... '" '" Je~q ....~~ "''''... '" . . '" 0 "''''''' '" . . ....;M '" ... ~ :t o ""'"'' '" . . (")~t- 0_'" '" . . ~~~ "'0", '" . . -"'''' '" '" ~ cO '" ..."'- '" . . ....~C? "''''0 ~.,....:,....;: '''OJ''' oC"J-ct "'", '" '" "' '" "''''0 '" . . -...", '" '" '" ... . . ..."'''' -"'''' -"'''' ~a:)N :s*tft 1-0 ~ <a 0_ -g 2:~ ..< " '" .,; '" .--- <a 15 I- -' .5 ci... 0.- <~ I-- "0 E ...., '" oc ii: cr." 0.8 ~ :ggj 2 I'lw ~ l- I-- 3 ci... ~~ "0 --;:- ~"O ~ '" DC ii: a: " ..0 -.0 -;- 1ii~ 2'5 .2 ..z ::;; I- --;:- Q; ..J ci... 0.- <~ --;:- 1il"O ~ '" OC oc a:5 .Q-B - 0" 1a~ 2 ~ 0 I- --;:- Q; ..J ci... 0.- <~ "0 --;:- ~"O ~ Oc '" a: " ii: ~o --" ";::.!:: - ~- "," " ~o .2 ..'" I- ::;; -. '" m ..J .. E F ~ " .. ~ ii5 '" ci '" <ri <ri '" '" '" 0 ;1;gJ '" '" '" ci '" a; ((;00 N '" ci 0"'''' ... o .'" '" -~ "'0'" ... -,..: 0"'0 0 '" .'" ",'" -~ - ,:.: '" '" "'- '" ~ ~gJ g ci "0 ~t-:~ ~ -:'? "''''''' '" ~~(\j N J:::~~ ... ",- - ,:.: - '" a; _ '" ~ ",- '" ci ......'" '" CDcr:iN '" '" "'-... ... "'m 0"'_ ",1? gSj'" ,:.: "' '" ~~ ~ ~ "'''' ci "''''''' '" <0,..:...... ..."'''' '" N...t...... N "'",'" -'" .. .. a. '" ... ,..: Vl()~ ~OCD",,:"" -'" ow o- m ....C(l).....(l)'-...,;(l)'- E.QE~Eti.sE.fl ot>..2 e.2 tIS.s::.2 tIS U. (1) 0 Q) ou. o>ou. ai>a..~~I>-a :::l..... Q) Q) ~.s ~a... Q. -" - .. m Q. ... ",- - ,:.: ~~ ~~lO 000 vvO C')C')C\I C\lC\I~ lOO,-- 001'-C\I a>())Q) E-oroo ellOoz ZOt::()) Q)~<<s(J) ._'_ +-' r:o: LLCJ)CJ)D.. I'- C\I _ V Ul CO Q) , ;: g E())oC') ::::I::::I""d'"- OeOO> (J)Q)C\Joy- >0><0 a><( ~ o <( X .- CD ttI C:cOu. a>.- - CJ)tt1Q> ttI ~:!2 lO _C')f/)cn tt11'-~V OI'-tt1CO oo>~6 ~ m iii C') ~ ~ I- 0> ~ ~ -0 m o ll: o (5 1:: ttI ~ 0 C:- ~ o/l 000>-0 Ol'-m o/l~C\lO ~ C\lll: ell . , Q) en ..- ro - 0- o >. -c [Doom .. ci Cl ~-oZ ~ a>()) ttI .s::.-u~ ~c~ w::J tt1.. 0)000 :5:0[D.3 6~ . arto Out In Total ~ '99 c:MD 67 32 100 R1l1't Thru left oJ 1 4 "J s ~s t.. :c~ !~ " 4-E~ ~ 0< .... -- ..!i ~8 . " .... o 00 ~~ ~~. ~~- ~~ ~, r--~---J> :c h <----~ z 'J, 1..' OO~ S~ OO~ ~ SIZ [gO paaO.L UI 'ro eoOIR . APR-Bl-2BB4 04:24 PM TDSSW 619 "'90 8427 P..30 traffic Oat a Servjc~ Southwest We~thl)r cte.. & Dry 9m Maine, Avenue EtYdy Ne",,' 04104000 . COunted by : J.Rice Leke.ide, (4 92040 si.o Code I 00104080 Board #J 01-1430 (619) 390-8495 f.. (6'9) 390-8427 S..r. Ootet 03/23/a4 Location :Margeritll Rd & De Portola Rd P... .1 Group 1 1\i':Brgar its Road 10. Portol. Road !Margar i tB Read IDe Portal. Road I Southbound I~..tbound I Northbound I eastbound SUl"t I I 1 1 Ilntvl. ~L.f. Thru RtRht ped.1 Loft Thru Riqht Peds I Left Thru Rt.ht Pods I Lef. Thru Rtollt Peds I TOtol 03/23/04 I I 1 1 01:001 12 127 3 01 II 26 21 al 20 241 10 01 0 4 10 01 49' 01:151 16 '61 2 01 11 28 18 01 15 130 11 01 3 7 7 01 409 01:301 8 '40 4 01 26 37 7 01 19 93 11 01 0 6 13 01 364 01.451 12 '34 2 01 19 48 5 01 2, 102 9 01 1 1) '0 21 316 ~ourl 4B 562 11 01 67 139 51 01 15 572 41 01 4 2B 40 21 1640 I I 1 1 I oa.aol 12 93 4 01 22 35 7 01 '6 94 15 01 2 20 22 01 342 08.151 t2 102 5 01 18 42 20 01 28 108 12 01 , 13 ,I 01 31Z 00.]01 5 130 ] 01 13 32 21 11 15 '29 10 01 6 16 17 01 398. OB:451 3\ 218 2 01 ,2 27 29 01 29 166 ,2 01 12 10 20 01 568 Kouri 60 543 14 01 65 136 17 11 sa 497 49 01 21 59 70 01 ,6110 1 I I I 1 10tall 'OB ,,05 25 01 13Z 275 128 11 163 1069 90 01 25 B7 110 21 3320 % Apr. I 8.7 89.2 2.0 -I 24.6 51.3 23,8 0.11 12.3 50,8 6.8 -I 11.1 3B.8 49.1 0.81 I ,,,.. I 3.2 33.2 0.7 -I 3.9 8.2 3.8 '1 4.9 52.1 2.7 .1 0.7 2.6 3,3 '1 P8~k KOUr AnQly.t& By Entire Intersection for the P&r(od~ 07:00 on 03/23/04 to 08~45 en 03/23/04 limo I 08.00 I 08:00 1 08;00 I 08;00 1 Vol. I 60 ~43 14 01 65 136 77 11 sa 497 49 01 21 59 70 01 . Pet. I . 9.7 88.0 2.2 0.01 23.2 48,7 27.5 0.31 13.8 78.3 7.7 0.01 14.0 39.3 46.6 0.01 fo'(ql J 617 I 279 I 634 1 150 I HIgh I 08.45 I 08t,5 I 08,45 I 08:00 , vol. I 31 21B 2 01 18 42 20 01 29 166 12 01 2 20 22 01 Total 1 251 I so 1 207 1 44 I PKf I 0.614 I 0.871 I 0.765 I 0.852 I . APR-01-2034 04:25 ~M TDSSW 619 390 8427 P.31 W&at"er Co""Ud Py , Boord fI Location Cle.. & Dry J.Rlo. 01-1430 :~ar9.rita Rd & o. Portola Rd Traffic Data Service Southwest 9113 Maine Avenue Lak.sid., CA 9204D (619) 390-8495 fa. (619) 390-8427 Study Hllm'" Site Cod# : start Ddtctt PIllD 04104080 0010400_ 03/23/0. 2 Group 1 IHor.ar! to Road 10. Portola Ro.d \~aroari to Road IDe Portotl Road I Southbound IWll1ltboUnd I Northbound IElstbound Snrt 1 I 1 1 ilnlvl. Time I Left Thru Riqht ped,1 left: Thru RiQht ped,l Left Thru Rior'll Pedlil Left rtlru IHaM ped, I 1"otDl 1 1 I I I H"-"'I....it.. RDad 543 595 J.4 G9 ~ ~ ~ l' 1212 De POlPtol" lI....... 1 33B -r 13;'23;'04 ~ 77 ..!I' B:9~a.. 21 :4 aM t- 136 ~ 388 1GB" 44"1 5' l' ~ 65 78 ~ ~ 169 Dl! POlPto 1 a Road N 1312 oJ, 1 i r 679 88 49'1 4 ""..".....1t... Ro...l . . APR-01-2084 134:25 PM TDSSW 619 3913 8427 P.32 Troff1c Data Service Southwest ~ea'thl!l" clear & Dry 9773 "sine Avenue Study N.... 04104081 . Counud . by : J.IUcI loakeglde, CA 92040 Sf to Coda ! 00104081 SQprd tJ 01.1430 (619) 390-8495 fa. (619) 390-81.27 .t.rt D.tel 03/23/?4 LoC~tion :Muraorite Rd & D~ Portela Rd p.;. .1 Group 1 IMorgarlt. ~oad IDe Portola Roed IHerserlte Roed IDe portol. Rood ISouthbolJnd IW..tbound INorthbound 1,0.tbmJncl Start I I I I i'ntvl. Time 1 Left Thru RfQh'l:: pOdol Lnoft Thru Rfaht Peds' Left Thru RiAht Peds I Loft Thru Rfoht Peds I Tout 03/<3/04 I 1 I I ,6,001 11 160 3 01 14 13 12 01 19 205 8 01 5 33 39 01 522 16.151 14 166 a 01 10 27 19 01 16 212 17 01 , 40 57 01 S79 16<301 10 128 0 01 8 19 6 01 17 155 7 01 4 32 43 01 429 16<451 7 187 2 01 13 20 6 01 23 184 11 01 2 41 70 01 566 ~ourl 42 641 5 01 45 79 43 01 7S 756 43 01 12 146 209 01 2096 I I I 1 1 17<001 21 146 1 01 13 '8 12 01 '2.9 218 23 01 4 38 69 01 592 1711S1 13 191 1 01 8 12 7 01 15 199 21 01 8 69 60 01 604 11.301 20 109 1 01 1 18 8 01 30 222 21 01 II 60 75 01 642 11:451 21 183 2 01 17 12 18 01 22 221 31 01 9 .52 48 01 642 N""rl 75 689 5 01 45 60 45 01 96 866 96 01 32 219 252 01 2480 I I 1 I I Tot.q 117 1330 10 01 90 139 88 01 171 1622 139 01 44 365 461 01 4516 ~ Apr. 1 8.0 91.2 0.6 '1 28.3 43.8 27.7 .1 8.8 83.9 1.1 -I 5.0 41.9 52.9 '1 ~ Int. I 2.5 29.0 0.2 -I 1.9 3.0 1.9 -I 3.1 35.4 3,0 -I 0.9 7.9 10.0 '1 Peak Hollr- Anelytfe ay Entire lntartect{on fol" the Period: 16:00 on 03/23/04 to 11145 on 03/23/04 Time I 17.00 I 17,00 111:00 I 17,00 I Vol. I 75 689 5 01 45 00 45 01 96 866 96 01 32 219 252 01 . Pc-to I 9.7 89.5 0,6 0.01 30.0 40.0 30.0 0.01 9.0 81.8 9.0 0.01 6.3 43.5 50.0 0.01 TotaL I 769 I 150 1 105" I 503 I Nigh 117:45 1 17:45 I 17.45 I 17,30 I Vol. I 21 183 2 01 11 12 18 01 22 227 31 01 11 60 75 01 Total I 206 1 47 I 280 I '46 I PNF I 0.933 I 0.797 I 0.944 I 0.861 1 . APR-01-2004 04:26 PM TDSSW 619 3913 8427 P.33 Weather Countl!td by I Boord # Location Clear & Dry J.Rlce 0\.1430 :Mar9arita Rd & De Portela Rd Traffic Data Service SouthWQst 9773 Main! Avenue Lek..lde, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 /ax (619) 396.8427 5~udy w..... 0..104061 sit. CoQ. , 0010460. stert Oet.. 03/2310 Pelll I 2 Croup 1 IMargar 1 ta ROlld 10. PortoLI ~oed I~.rg..lta Road 101 PortoL. Road I Southbound jW..tboUnd INor~hbound !eastbound Start I I I I IIntvL. Hma I Left Thru Rfght Peds I Left Thru ~I.h~ Pecfg,! Left ThrLl Rfant Pede' Left lhru Rfaht Peds , 10..1 I I I I I Ma%'ga"it.. Road liB'.! '.143 :I 7:1 ~ ~ ~ l' 1112 DR "o>>tola A^A.I 161. ~ G1ana/IM 't.. 43 ..s 1II:I:IIIIIIpM 33 O:l:4'p,. f- 611 664 2489 549 21.9 ~ l' ~ 45 252 W -T 3911 D.. porotola JIoad N 2044 . -l- 1 i r 996 866 96 96 M.."garit.. Road . . APR-131-20B4 134:21 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P.22 Traffic Date Servfce Southwest \leather C~e8r & Dry 9m NollW Avenue Study Nome. 04104060 . Counted by : J.Green & R.Taylor Lakl!lsidl!, CA 92040 SIte Code I 00104060 Board II 01.1426 & 01-1429 (619) 390.8495 fex (619) 390-B427 Stert oete: 03/23/04 l.ocation Margar\to Rd & Sh-79 PIIge : 1 Grcl.lp 1 I".lrgarita Road ISR'79 IRed H~wk Parkway ISR'79 I.,uthbound IWestbound I Northbound le..tbound Start 1 I I I I,ntvl. fime I Lef' Thru Riaht Pode' Laf! Tht'IJ Rfcht p~d~1 ll!lf! Thru Rinht Pedol loft Thru Rlaht Peds I Toul 03/23/04 I I I I 07'001 13 89 33 '1 33 256 17 01 79 244 3t 01 36 174 32 01 1038 07,,51 19 153 44 01 71 218 18 01 86 102 18 01 58 169 44 01 1000 07,301 21 131 48 01 62 219 12 01 125 9B 29 01 48 131 57 21 983 07:451 2B 121 44 01 71 173 37 tl 125 109 43 01 47 ~7 30 31 1039 Hour I 81 494 169 11 237 866 84 11 415 553 121 OJ 109 6Bl 163 51 4060 I I I I I 08:001 19 100 40 11 B3 253 17 01 BO 95 55 01 64 151 36 01 994 06:151 22 B3 53 01 77 242 19 01 127 110 27 31 63 169 43 01 1058 06:301 26 94 35 01 55 182 36 01 87 B8 2B 01 77 182 44 01 934 OB:451 51 161 54 01 56 203 44 01 144 145 59 II 69 154 39 01 1180 Houri 118 438 182 11 271 8BO 116 01 438 438 169 41 273 676 162 01 4166 I I 1 I I Tototl '99 932 351 21 508 1746 200 '1 853 991 290 41 462 1357 325 51 6226 X Apr. I 13.4 62.8 23.6 0.11 20.6 71.1 8.1 -I 39.8 46,3 13.5 0.11 21.4 63,1 15.1 0.21 ~ Int. I 2.4 11.3 4,2 .\ 6.1 21.2 2.4 -I 10.3 12.0 3.5 -I 5.6 16.4 3.9 ., Peak ~OUr Ana~ysis By Entire Inte~Seet{on for the PerIod: 07:00 on 03/23/04 to 08:45 on 03/23104 Time I OB,OO I 09,00 I 08:00 I 08:00 1 Vol. I 119 416 182 I' 271 990 11. 01 438 438' 169 41 273 676 162 01 . Pet. I 15.9 59.2 24.6 0.11 21.3 69.4 9.1 0.01 41.7 41.7 16,' 0.31 24.5 60.8 14.5 0.01 Tctifl I 739 I 1267 I 1049 I 1'" I High I 09:4S I OB:OO I 08:4S I 09:30 I Vol. I 51 161 54 01 113 253 17 01 144 145 59 'I n 182 44 01 Total I 166 I 353 I 349 I 303 I pliF I 0.694 I 0.897 I 0.751 1 0.916 I . APR-01-2004 04:21 PM TDSSW 619 3'98 8427 P.23 We.~h.r Countotl by , loord . .oo.~lon Start TIme cle.r & Dry J.Green & R.TaylQr DI-1428 & DI-1429 Margarita Rd & SR-19 Traffic Data Service Southwest 9713 Maine Av.nue Lak.. f de. CA 9Z040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 IMorgarl~. ~o.d /southbound I I left lhru Riaht ! ISR-79 IW..tbound I Pedal Left Thru RfRht I Croup 1 IRed Hawk Parkway Inorthbound I PedB I l81t Tnru Rir::lht I 1 HaX'lIal'tta Road 438 827 182 118 ~ l ~ l' 1566 Study N..... 04104060 site code , DOl040!0A Start Dote, OJ/Z3/dIIII' Pago i 2 ISR-79 I Eastbound I ~edBI Left Th~u Riaht I IlntvL potl.1 lotal I SR~'l'9 15li10 .,.... Ilrl~:=4 't.. 116 2'13 oS ~ 88111 ~ 2611 41&& 22213 616 l' oF a71 .162 -;j, ~ 963 . SR-19 N 192111 -I- ~ i r 811 438 438 169 4 Rod Hawk Pal'~wau . APR-01-2004 134:22 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P..24 Traffic Data Service Southwest YeGther clear & Dry 9173 Maine Avenue StUdy N""*' 04104061 . COIIIl!ed by , J.Green & R.Taytor Lukeside, CA n040 Si,. Cod. I 00104061 Board 11 01-14l6 & Dl-1429 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390-8427 su,., D.t.: 03/21/04 locntlon MBrgprltq Rd & S~.79 Paga ,1 GI"OUP 1 IM.r..ritl Road ISR-7'1 IRed Howk Porkwoy ISR.79 ISouthbound IWostboUnd IHorthbound IEootbaund Start I 1 I I pnM. Tj"" I loft Thru Rleht PMfll Left Thru Ril:l'ht peds I Left Thl'U Rfa!1t Peds I left Thru Riaht Perl'lloUl 03/23/04 I I I I 16:001 76 196 32 01 89 185 41 11 90 144 51 01 108 288 86 11 1392 16'151 55 141 28 01 92 174 19 01 n 142 48 01 119 ~4 88 21 1286 16.301 56 166 41 11 91 192 34 71 88 129 48 01 109 270 54 11 1287 16:451 8e 196 31 01 93 147 37 21 110 164 53 0\ 83 219 82 01 1365 HO<lrl Z77 703 132 11 365 698 151 101 360 57'1 200 01 419 1121 310 41 5330 I I I I I 17.001 52 169 37 11 102 156 35 21 69 138 44 01 118 377 102 11 1403 17,151 81 195 12 01 104 154 35 01 8J 144 44 01 114 300 91 01 1577 17.301 63 196 16 'I 90 163 38 21 90 157 52 11 III 375 83 'I 1459 17:451 55 181 42 01 89 165 40 01 82 119 45 01 130 326 79 01 13?3 ltourl 25' . 741 147 21 385 638 148 41 324 558 185 II 473 1378 355 21 5592 I 1 I I I Total I 528 1444 <79 31 750 1336 299 '41 684 1137 385 11 892 <499 665 61 10922 ~ ApI'. I 23.4 64.0 12.3 0.1 I 31.2 55.6 12.4 0.51 30.9 51,S 17.4 '1 21.9 61.5 16.3 0.11 \ Int. I 4.B 13.2 2.5 -I 6.8 12.2 2.7 0.11 6.2 10.4 3.5 '1 8.1 22.8 6.0 '1 PeaK Ho~r Ane\~\s By Ent;re lntersection for the Period: 16:00 on 03/23/04 to 17:45 on 03/Z3/04 Tillie i t6:4S I 16,45 I 16:45 1.'6'45 I Vol. 1 284 756 136 21 389 6<0 145 6( 352 603 193 1/ 426 1331 358 2\ . Pet. I 24.1 64,1 11.5 0_11 33.5 53.4 12.5 0.51 30.6 52.4 '6.7 0.01 20.1 62.8 16.9 9.41 lotal I 1178 I 1160 I 1149 I 2117 I ~Igh I 16;45 I 17.00 I 16:45 ( 17:00 I vol. I 88 196 31 01 102 156 35 21 110 164 53 01 118 177 102 1\ Total I 315 I 295 I 327 I 598 I PHP I 0.934 1 0.983 I 0.B7B I 0.885 I . APR-01-2ea4 04:22 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P..25 waltttlar countod by : UOllrd # locatIon CI.er & Ory J.Gr..n & R.T8ylor 01-1428 & 01-1429 Margarita Rd & SR.79 Traffic Data Service Southwest 9773 Ma;ne Avenue La~.ald.. CA 92040 (619) 390-6495 fax (619) 390-6427 Study Nomo, 04104061 SIt. Code : 001040. st.rt 0".' 03/23/ Po;. , 2 Group 1 !Mqrsorita Road \SR-79 IROd H.w~ P.r~w.y ISR-79 I Southbound IUtstbound I Northbound !e.otbOlll"ld SUrt I I I I Iln,y\. n... I Left Thru RI.ht p@odsl Left Thl'lJ Rfaht pl!dal Left lk,u Rloh, pedol Left Thru R{cmt Peds r Total I I I I I Mar!j"iU'ita Roaa 2 756 1174 136 284 ~ 1 ~ l' 2352 I"'D_'SD , 1198 +- 1il31'23/lil4 1:.. 145 ...1- 1il4:45pM 426 IilS:31i1plO ~ 6 alii -7 3335 5694 2968 1331 l' ~ 389 358 '":l- -+ 18118 2 SR-79 N 2652 >!- ~ i f l:JliI3 693 - 352 193 J. Red H....d' l'.....k....!l . . Traffic Data Service Southwest Vehicle Counts Eastbound .hiClecount-511 -- EnQlish (ENU) Datasets: Site: [23402] !De Portola Road West of Pio Pi co Rd Direction: 8 - East bound A>B, West bound B>A., Lane: 0 Survey Duration: 18:37 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 => 15:29 Friday, July 15, 2005 File: Z:\mcdata\LLG\2005\234\UM23402715.ECO (Base) Identifier: A556KBJ1 MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07/06/99 Algorithm: Factory default Data type: Axle sensors - Paired (Class, Speed, Count) Profile: Filter time: 19:00 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 => 11:00 Friday, July 15, 2005 Included classes: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13 Speed range: 0 - 100 mph. Direction: East (bound) Separation: All - (Headway) Name: Factory default profile Scheme: Vehicle classification (Scheme F99) Units: Non metric (ft, mi, ftIs, mph, Ib, ton) In profile: 8826 Vehicles .esday, July 12, 2005 - Total=653 (Incomplete) , 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 DSOO 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 223 188 '150 S5 37 62 4S 43 15 13 3 64 43 47 21 6 5 5S 64 41 10 12 5 42 36 19 9 6 2 . Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - Total=3798, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 15 9 10 3 6 22 42 77 108 162 166 220 284 236 270 312 393 459 342 251 181 125 61 44 3 3 4 1 0 3 8 17 20 57 33 SO 89 69 76 74 87 127 99 69 57 43 27 ~7 4 5 4 3 0 ~ 5 ~o 19 28 33 33 49 67 57 56 68 90 133 83 60 48 28 10 10 7 5 2 3 0 3 S 14 21 21 33 42 53 62 52 S5 69 103 117 87 61 36 30 11 11 4 2 0 0 2 2 9 10 20 39 39 58 68 66 58 83 101 113 82 73 55 40 24 13 6 4 AM Peak 1145 -1245 (286), AM PHF=O.80 PM Peak 1645 -1745 (490), PM PHF=O.92 . Thursday, July 14, 2005 - Total=3732, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0100 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 19 15 7 8 5 13 41 76 118 128 164 241 290 244 277 285 379 464 316 251 186 110 65 30 4 3 0 1 0 4 3 10 14 30 40 54 78 70 69 66 78 122 loa 73 ss 31 25 12 4 7 4 4 3 0 1 15 14 36 28 40 53 86 63 69 66 85 126 82 60 50 40 20 6 5 4 4 3 1 1 2 14 22 31 31 36 68 54 57 68 66 94 115 61 60 37 17 11 8 3 4 4 0 3 4 6 9 30 37 39 48 66 72 54 71 87 122 101 65 58 44 22 9 4 2 AM Peak 1130 -1230 (298). AM PHF=O.87 PM Peak 1645 -1745 (485). PM PHF=D.96 . Friday, July 15, 2005 - Total=643 (Incomplete), 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 14 15 9 4 6 25 44 72 112 168 174 4 5 5 0 0 3 7 16 20 33 35 5 6 2 1 2 5 12 13 22 39 46 3 2 2 0 1 7 14 23 22 44 48 2 2 0 3 3 10 11 20 48 52 45 . jIbS Traffic Data Service Southwest Vehicle Counts Westbou'Wt VehicleCount-511 --EnQlish {ENUl Datasets: Site: [23402] !De Portola Road West of Pio Pico Rd Direction: 8 - East bound A>B, West bound B>A., Lane: 0 Survey Duration: 18:37 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 => 15:29 Friday, July 15, 2005 File: Z:\mcdata\LLG\2005\234\UM23402715.ECO (Base) Identifier: A556KBJ1 MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07/06/99 Algorithm: Factory default Data type: Axle sensors - Paired (Class, Speed, Count) Profile: Filter time: 19:00 Tuesday, July 12, 2005 => 11:00 Friday, July 15,2005 Included classes: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 Speed range: 0 -100 mph. Direction: West (bound) Separation: All - (Headway) Name: Factory default profile Scheme: Vehicle classification (Scheme F99) Units: Non metric (ft, mi, ftIs, mph, Ib, ton) In profile: 7051 Vehicles . Tuesday, July 12,2005 - Total=262 (Incomplete), 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0100 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1900 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 102 66 57 23 14 25 22 19 6 7 2 27 20 18 10 3 2 27 ~o 10 4 2 2 23 14 10 3 2 1 . . Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - Total=2898, 15 mInute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 7 3 3 8 32 62 147 261 255 231 191 185 205 144 148 185 192 19B 158 112 73 42 34 21 2 0 1 2 4 8 25 50 62 54 62 31 56 32 34 43 31 4' 38 27 24 13 9 10 1 2 2 2 0 3 18 32 60 69 58 32 45 56 41 37 46 49 46 38 31 17 6 7 7 0 2 0 0 2 9 18 43 58 65 53 55 54 40 32 48 52 58 49 42 30 15 10 12 1 4 1 1 0 4 16 18 47 93 59 66 42 55 54 39 29 44 54 54 40 24 17 13 6 3 2 AM Peak 0745. 0845 (289~. AM PHFaO.78 PM Peak 1615 -1715 (210), PM PHF=O.91 . Thursday, July 14, 2005. Total=2777, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 7 7 5 2 32 58 131 261 248 210 156 189 195 177 145 184 189 179 127 116 79 53 18 9 1 4 1 0 4 9 26 65 11 54 41 36 50 41 27 36 33 41 3D 31 20 20 4 4 2 o 0 1 0 5 7 31 48 49 50 42 46 48 39 38 48 48 47 29 29 20 15 3 2 3 4 2 3 2 15 17 38 13 57 58 "34 53 50 56 41 55 51 47 31 34 15 8 6 2 0 2 1 0 0 8 25 36 75 71 48 39 54 47 35 39 45 57 38 37 22 24 10 5 1 2 AM Peak 0730.0830 (268), AM PHF=O.89 PM Peak 1615 -1715 (203), PM PHFaO.89 . Friday, July 15, 2005 - Total=1114 (Incomplete) , 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 7 1 2 12 22 69 137 238 235 207 184 2 0 0 1 3 11 23 49 58 46 44 3 0 1 2 1 16 32 54 52 50 56 o 1 0 6 4 22 43 70 55 58 47 2 0 1 3 14 20 39 65 70 53 37 ?<O3<6 . Traffic Data Service Southwest Event Counts .entCount-452 - EnQlish (ENU) Datasets: Site: [23401E] De Portola Road East of Pio Pico Rd Input A: 2 - East bound. - Added to totals. (1) Input B: 0 - Unused or unknown. - Excluded from totals. (0) Survey Duration: 17:04 Tuesday, July 05, 2005 => 22:41 Friday, July 08, 2005 File: Z:\mcdala\LLG\2005\234\23401 E09JUL2005.ECO (Plus) Identifier: A7987E8Y MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07/06/99 Algorithm: Event Count Data type: Axle sensors - Separate (Count) Profile: Filter time: Name: Scheme: Units: In profile: 0:00 Wednesday, July 06, 2005 => 1 :00 Friday, July 08, 2005 Factory default profile Count events divided by two. Non metric (ft, mi, fils, mph, Ib, ton) 8263 Events . Wednesday, July 06, 2005=3819, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 DaDo 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 13 11 5 , 5 17 39 79 103 144 186 230 263 269 276 316 396 457 349 236 181 132 79 24 5 5 2 4 0 3 7 14 21 32 53 56 66 71 56 62 83 94 102 63 5S 41 14 6 . 4 1 1 1 1 3 5 21 19 27 43 53 62 62 79 91 98 143 9S 59 48 34 29 7 3 3 2 1 2 2 14 20 23 37 45 50 77 65 66 66 104 121 87 52 44 36 22 3 1 2 0 3 2 9 1] 24 40 48 45 71 58 71 7S 97 III 99 75 62 )4 21 14 B AM Peak 1145 -1245 (276). AM PHF=O.90 PM Peak 1645 -1745 (469l, PM PHF=O.82 . Thursday, July 07, 2005=4424, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 23 15 7 4 8 28 160 295 246 221 18' 241 282 250 273 286 428 513 317 229 180 152 54 23 6 8 0 1 2 3 23 58 81 51 58 49 77 61 68 59 102 111 81 58 50 48 19 10 7 1 1 0 1 3 25 91 57 52 39 62 66 58 58 64 111 139 84 56 57 42 16 7 7 1 2 1 1 7 51 63 59 57 46 51 76 65 65 67 105 130 85 64 32 34 11 5 3 5 4 2 4 15 61 83 49 61 46 79 63 66 82 96 110 133 67 51 41 28 8 1 AM Peak 0715.0815 (318), AM PHF;;;;0.87 PM Peak 17~O .1800 (513), PM PHF=O.92 . Friday, July 08, 2005=20 (Incomplete) , 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2. . 4 4 4 tf/{):) . Eastbound , 7 7 3 . 4 4 4 Traffic Data Service Southwest Event Counts EventCount-452 EnQlish (ENU) Westbounit Datasets: Site: [23401W] De PortoJa Road East of Pio Pico Rd Input A: 4 - West bound. - Added to totals. (1) Input B: 0 - Unused or unknown. - Excluded from totals. (0) Survey Duration: 17:05 Tuesday, July 05, 2005 => 22:40 Friday, July 08, 2005 File: Z:\mcdata\LLG\2005\234\23401W09JUL2005.ECO (Base) Identifier: A566R8D4 MC56-1 [MC55] (c)Microcom 07/06/99 Algorithm: Event Count Data type: Axle sensors - Separate (Count) Profile: Filter time: Name: Scheme: Units: In profile: 0:00 Wednesday, July 06,2005 => 1 :00 Friday, July 08,2005 Factory default profile Count events divided by two. Non metric (ft, mi, ftIs, mph, Ib, ton) 5819 Events . Wednesday, July 06, 2005=2899, 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 12 6 4 11 27 61 134 246 255 205 202 216 191 189 148 186 206 141 173 115 63 51 34 17 8 1 3 2 4 12 24 45 &9 62 40 50 S5 U 27 44 51 36 39 28 14 14 13 4 4 . 2 3 1 0 2 15 28 66 67 55 56 52 40 36 38 44 43 36 36 30 21 15 10 4 1 1 1 0 6 12 IS 31 67 57 41 S9 55 51 55 43 SO 57 32 48 26 14 9 9 2 1 1 1 0 3 9 19 51 68 62 47 47 S9 45 49 40 48 55 43 50 31 14 13 2 7 2 AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (271), AM PHF=O.98 PM Peak 1600 _ 1700 (2oo), PM PHF=O.90 . Thursday, July 07, 2005=2911,15 mInute drops 0000 o~oo 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 IBOO 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 8 7 7 7 28 58 134 249 267 227 181 209 191 159 170 196 171 166 164 139 89 47 26 11 4 1 1 2 4 8 17 56 64 48 38 54 51 45 47 34 31 35 50 43 33 22 5 3 3 1 4 2 1 3 16 33 58 79 63 48 56 43 40 36 53 49 49 37 35 14 13 8 2 2 1 2 3 2 11 15 33 65 47 56 44 54 51 37 48 56 53 43 40 33 18 8 6 6 2 2 0 1 2 10 19 51 70 77 60 51 45 46 37 39 53 38 39 37 28 24 4 7 0 1 AM Peak 0730 - 0830 (278). AM PHF=O.88 PM Peak 15DD -1600 (196). PM PHF:O.88 . Friday, July 08. 2005=8 (Incomplete) , 15 minute drops 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 OBOO 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 . 3 2 2 1 (liDS . . . . ApPENDIX B CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC DATA LINSCOTT. LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) ll.G Ref. 3-ll4-1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum R\I-lQJ\Rcn--sed.Rpi.\il.etiscd- Tbls\..o\,ppcw..n~ C:n."a Page$.doe j j I j I . ~i EXHIBIT 9A TEMECULA SENIOR C RE FACILITY TRIP Of STRIBUTION . ! s _ MARGAR@RD. j t , , I' I t I . LEGEND: -., 10-=-PERCENT-TOIFROM PROJECT--.- 3-15 ! i i ~ engine~ring I1.U.! group, me. I . J N 1309-02-01-E:'..C9A. A?IS PlAZA, 'R-lverside County, California ~ . ~ (f) II:: . W '" ~ ~.~ Q) ::;: !z .. ~ ::> '" ",0 13 ...J 0 ~ z ::l 0 ..J > ('j ~ 0> ~ iii 0- ::> lL... 0 => :I: ~ ~ ::> &l => " 0- '" ... I- 0 "" ::;: "I:: 0- Eo "- :J~ ::;: -0 <( 0" >" '- '., '-" :J_ 01:: .c:'- -",OJ ~ o.c: ~ ,,- a.- 'iAJSS\O~ 0 =>1:: a.;. '-0 a =>.c: <" Cl (f) \J\ : UJ I- 0 Z . 0 ~ f 1: .0. H 'ff' . ---......... " '" "'I~ ~.;- ~_l"} "'" ~'" , ~'" ~I'- .... 'Iz .-' - ' ~'7 '"> . .. 0 ~ Clltr ! It"" ir;-J T1~ .. ~ ~ '. ~ ~ II) QO \;" ",'" t I{) ~ <lc) .. " ~ ~.TE\5 ~ '" .. .. ~ '" 0 ~\ ~ Il! ~ :!! I ~ '- '" .. 0 .. c;; 9 '" ~ . I] - "._----- ...--- ,.-...-. .--------.. ...~.-_.. 11 II iI ~ EXHIBIT 9C TENTATIVE TRA T MAP 30180 TRIP DISTRIBUTION . " MEADOWS PKMIY. J ~ ~. I ~ , RD. .., MARGARIJ.II, RD. " JEDEDIAH AVENIDA DE SMITH RD. MISSIONES '-.. 5 ..' <'0 45'-.. ..7" " ~"-'.. o I so iil:-~ PASEO .., \:V, ",-"'~cuLA C PARALlON -...-.L,..._ '-EM~ REDHA PKWY. . LEGEND: .. 10= PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT ...-... J 3-17 ~ ~ . N 1309-02-D1-E"1< 9C APIS PLAZA, ~~lverside county. California . en9ine~ring group, me. . EXHIBIT 9D TEME ULA CREEK TRIP ISTRIBUTION 'I .. J " - I . ~ - I I ",~./ . s~o. 6VERLAND T~ . 1'f. VAt( ~-I-C I ~'" 'f:; . . 3.1 .. .",. il'ENf>. WY. MEADOWS PKWY. MARGAR[t. RD. 1309-02-Q1-E!<_90 APIS PlAZA. ~erside Gounty, California 3-18 I ".1,1 :Ii 'I. o. -: I -. I H. I 1 J .um! - .. .engine~ring _ . .. ., group, mc. I _ I I I . : LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT J . N I__.__,____~.._-- j I I i , . t:' EXHIBIT 9E VAIL RANCH TO NE SQUARE TRIP DISTRIBUTION . & MEADOWS PKWY. (!:EN/>, W't'. & MARGARIR- RD. JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. "-.. 5 1- rLEGEND: . ,--.._--_.._.,.O....1'ERCEr<t-t071'Rt5lvfPRcYJECT. I I i '309.QZ-01-eix_9E I. APIS PLAZA.iR;v,..lde County. California 3-19 , ! I . ~ enginel]ring _ UW group, mc. I . J 1 ~- 1 - -. I - I u engine~ring _ '. group, mc. ! . ---~_._-_..',.._--~_......~-:.'--~"'-~' . i . . ~. EXHIBIT 9F TENTATIVE TRA T MAP 29473 . TRIP ISTRIBUTION . (~ENJ>- WI'. MEADOWS PKWY. RD. MARGARII.A RD. JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. .. .. LEGEND: . .. "-'~"lo7PERCENTToiFRi:iMP-RojECT- ~ um 1j09.02-01-E}c_9F. APIS PLAZA/RiVerside County. CalIfornia 3-20 J J J I . I .. I - - I --,--,-~,,--~--~--~.'~". --..--.-. -- . j j j I EXHIBIT 9G TENTATIVE TRA T MAP 29031 TRIP D STRIBUTION . I I I '- j I , , ~ - . -. -. LEGEND: , ~'_.'------.-lO'=-PERCENT1"otFR(jM PRO~ECT-~-.- ~ MEADOWS PKWY. . MARGARIIA RD. j j ~ , 3-21 I . ~ engine~ring ~ ~ group, me. i 1309-02-o1~[~ 9G APIS p~ Rlvarsloe COl,Inty, California TENTATIVE T TRI EXHIBIT 9H CT MAP 30052 DISTRIBUTION (li"ENp. WY. '" MEADOWS P'r0NY. j RD.. @ JEDEDIAH SMITH RO. ~ . ~ o~ !PI? ~.;;" ~O LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TDIFROM PROJECT; . J .N 1309-02-1)1-eX9H APlS pL4zA. Rlvers!de County. California 3-22 i tub. I. r engine~ring group, mc. '\ -j f .~_._--_._-~ -----------.--..-.-..... I i i r I ..-\ . i ~ EXHIBIT 91 . HI H SCHOOL TRIP 01 TRIBUTION . I i I I i i i j i MEADOWS PKWY. MARGARITA RD. JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. 1-. . LEGEND: .~____. ___. __.._1Q..~SB_Q.El!IJQIE~Q..~.f~_Q,J~9:r_. , ----- .---- .- II J I! ~-O1-!'" gJ. . 1 AP1S PlAV.;. Riverside Co.unty, California I: 3.-;1.3- i ! mrl' ... · engme~nng _ . . , group; me. I - / . \. 0, 1 ~ \I ~ " - )\'-- { j ...,\( - -., " ., ~,''''\1i> 'B\l"li!j.vS . , .,." ~~t.\P<ft:t>' .,,",'- ' >! .....-. :{ ~ ,! ., 'I .... ~~ ~"ttl1U~~ "i$SI .. , , .......1.......... j.~ ", . ~' ~Y/~ ,<~lJ;l ;.....::-::'...... : ... : ~ : j .... :' '-..,~~^ : ,.'/ ........_: it,1.. r,~,;~"~ ~ ~ : t : ..J ,- : (' : )' V,... :~: ...0 :: : "'~ . 'i. --; ..:..;' :': \~ r~o :. - .."I( ".' ........ :~~ " ,...~.. . ;.' :~ .......t! ..... ..... 1t -4t 2>.. ." '< , ~ .... ~ 10 ,,' 'i" ~ER5'fA'te 15 ~ o rnrn "c Eo .2:.J. gg rn, '-'~ "," 0<: .c'- .:s:~ ll~ a.~ o. ::Ec .e::.~ ~~ I .<ii ,w b ,z ~~ o z . * IZ\; ~V1O:: Q) , W w ::;: 1z l... .::J W :lQ:! ~ -i .0)--1 0:: is u.... ~I 5 ~ o :r: ~, ~I' :>c a 91 L5 w -+.. 0.. ~, .9; ..., ~::s .ii :........ '~ -I I I L ! .1 <> ... 15 o . ~12 _ 1 :;''' !j! ~ ~ w 1__. I W W I EXHIBIT 9K MARGA ITACANYON TRIP ISTRIBUTION. ~€'€'N~ WY. I i I i I I I i i MEADOWS PKWY. RD. MARGARIIA RD. JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. . ""- .. I LEGEND: . . I _'_0.- '''.0. -.--- ._.-"Hf=PERCENT T01FROMl'ROJEC,-.- ---- .-.. , I i ~ t 3-25 .um . 1309-02-01-EPC9K- API$ PlAZA,1Riverside County, California engine~ring group, mc. . . ~'EXHIBIT 9L RANCHO COM UNITY CHURCH CHURCH AND SCHOOL TRI. DISTRIBUTION I I ~I2EN" WY. .....r MEADOWS PKWY. Rd, I MARGARrrA RD. .~__j.j::.!i!?NP-L____ ._____'_.. 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT i 1309-!>2..Q1.EX 9L A:PLS :~~ _~!ver~.lde ~unlY, Calif'orhia 3-26 i . -.~engine~ring _ ..IJlII. group, me. , I". N , I i I i i EXHIBIT 8M RANCHO COMMU ITY CHURCH COMMERCIAL TRIP D STRIBUTION . ! ;. . <I:EN/\ WY. i i I i I i i I i i j I N 1309-Q2-01-qC9M I APIS PLAZA. \,,",,,,,ide County. California MEADOWS PKWY. RD. MARGARI]!\ RD_ JEDEDlAH SMITH RD. ~ !LEGEND: 10; PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT 3-27 i . ~ engine~ring _ UW group, me, . *" EXHIBIT 9N W LF CREEKTAZ 3 TIP DISTRIBUTION MEADOWS PKWY. i i {f:ENF>- WYi' I iRo. MARGARITA RD. JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. "-... .', i GOLF COURSE DR. .....,,~ ..~~~ LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT J' N i ....!...engine~ring LIW group,. mc. 130l3..o2-01-E)C9N APIS PlAZA. Riverside County, CalIfornia 3-28 , I , , f J EXHIBIT 90 WOLF REEK TAZ 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION . I , (l:ENJ>. WY. '-" MEADOWS PI<!-NY. RD. MARGARII.A RD. , i , , f i f. , J Ii Ii I: :.._...-L...~~E..sU!!, LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TOIFROM PROJECT j 3-29 um . N 1309-O2-01~~ 90 APIS Pl...AZAi RIverside County, California engine~ring _ group, mc. EXHIBIT gp WO F CREEKTAZ 6 TRI DISTRIBUTION <I:EN" . MEADOWS PKWY. Ro:. MARGARIIE- RD. JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. . .~ iGOLF . COURSE DR: -o~ ~~ Li:GI:ND: . 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT . J <_-:w um engine~ring group, mc. N 1309-n~-o1.EX 9P APIS F~. Riverside County, Caltrornia -, I , I " I I EXHIBIT 9U TIM 24188 TRIP ISTRIBUTION I I ~ I I I I I i I J 'N 1309-QZ-Dt.SC9U lAPIS PLAZ.\ Riverside County, Califernia' '1.6 ~E;EN WY, MEADOWS PKWY. RD. MARGARIJt. RD. LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TOIFROM PROJECT 3-35 ~ engine~ring _ u.w group, mc. . , I , . I . , - I. I i"l; I - , engine~ring _ group, me. I 1 ) ! ~ EXHIBITlA PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTlyN VOLUMES j I i '" La JTL ;:::9 8=' 11 r 2, N~V) 1 uci N 1309-0Z.01-EjX 7A APIS PLAZMRJverside County. California I , I " - - ~ l I ~. I I I I '" ., ~ - i :)'. I '-, t I I i I 1 eN .1309-02-o1~jB lAPIS PLAZI, Rlvemld. County. CaHfornia 1 EXHIBIT7B PPROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTHpN VOLUMES i I 3-9 ~ engine~ring group, mc. EXHIBIT 9V PALOMA DEL SOL OFFICE TRIP DISTRIBUTION. I MEADOWS (E'EN1>- Pl<!NY. CAMINO DEL SOL <$ MARGARI~ RD. ,~ ,.--->i .. '--... ~. ..~." '" ~ JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. '\1 ~ 0\ ~ ~ CPURSE DR. '&' ~\i .~ LEGEND: .10= PERCENT FROM PROJECT J . N 3-36 nm engine~ring group, inC. 1309-02~1..ex 9V API$ Pl~ Riverside County, California . ~1 ~) \ \ ~, J" I ~':>flb ..,II\,. 7~Jd. / ..,II\,. (= .. ..J MARGARITA RD ..J,tr ~11_ ,tr ~(Iq _ ...., . ...., -{;: '" I I Iii! Is: JA/cr '0 .~ ~.P~"~__~~ t~ :'" I ~: ~.. Ci3' (:;.. I PROJECT ~.. r. h L...PLL~:; -COUNTRY o I GLENlI'Y I ......,.. J:,q I , , >--;, I' .". 0' -:=:::... Q::i ~ Q. . PIO E'ICO . QfJ ""-:.i ~ i3 " ~ ~ '--= .... r --r-- -1'1 ~ '"1, I ~I ~I "'I "I o lJl ~i I I I '" ~ t'\ oIJ ---- 'l (j~ ()~ n~ ~ ~ 0> r-- \ REDHAWK PKWY '. I .1 '. "bo ~l '~,'\.. ~ ~-, ~(l",..- ,.J... . '5JI~ ~ 't"" -+ .. -". ~ Ir\ , .".. ~ Iii - ::ll f3~ ~ G):::Pi5! iD ... 3 all S! :J gel) -< 0)0 ~ ~ .- Ii: 0 ffi U. ~ i .~ 0.. 51 :::Pi ::ll ~ ~ ~ ~.~ " ~ j l c::0 ~. "'c> @l&:. ......,. ~,.., .,0 ~ Gi9 0:.... z ~ "" 0 :::. e; ... e 025 ~ .: VI 3: UJ C';:\ ~j~ ; , @ ca.~ z . '-- ~t:I( -1/1 rJJ ..II\.. \ ..II\.. 'e/., . , . REDHAWK 'e; MARGARJTA RD . PKWY ..I '"\ft" . . ..I II t '" "lIt'" I>!t- . - " . . - ". ~~ '\... -;:;-- - I ";;;--11> ... I .J,l" ~ c-6 Ilia 0 ~ _ h/r:.5 It 't ... ~ 10 e:r "" Jl/rr 'S ~ - ~ .~ +- =rOlld I... ~ ... IS) --------.,~ .;5l, 0 "'. -- f~ I'" ~ :r I ~ If) ~ I ., IS- I -::r /) I 11\ ."- lia I ..... I PROJECT In .. ~ I.....PL!'_~~ f' E-t I .3 -COUNTRY - ... l) GLEN 1rY ~ I ~ 0. ~ :' , .,t,.. f:l ~ , 0 ~ ::r PIO 1!ICO 0.., ~ tfl - l0 "OJ r- .. :J --r------- , :; ,.. r+ , I ~ I :r- SI ~) o~ flll ::;, . ~H I><> 0.1 0 i'll I ..... ~I 0 , IJ"". ~ .I:O~ I I ex "' '" H~' ~ Ii:. ..... I ~ 0'). 0 ... ~ ~- . Gl9 0:.... . 0)3 ~ ~i L.,; 011 R ::::::J ~ U,) < C)Q~ ~ u::~ II. ~ ~ ~ .'!! UJQ a.. iii ::!: ::E ~ a ~ I ~ J . DO z " '" ' ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 S 0() ~ .: I.I'l S: I.LJ 1::1 ::: <:t Q:' "" ...J...J~ ~ . I . . . . ~ 0 ~ 0.\""\ '" .r 0 il" ~ ~ ~ \1 \; 0 , 4- !: ~t ~\ ~ \ \, " '.Jll.. ~ 1./, ) ~I/~ .Jll.. '1 ~ J- MARGARlTA RD . II?! ~ ,tr 1/5.!. I,J -..... >- ,tr I ~ !&l - '" Al/a IS ~ ~ ~ ~-=~~~--~~ ~ '" ~ ~: t~ 1- v-" ~~. ~ i ~ ~ I ~.~ A ~ I _ . ~ Vol IPROJECT r ... ... D/w ....."'" ~" 2 h t-<.:._-:; -COUNTRY 'U~ '" u- I GLEN WY o ~ (\.\ ll, [::I I ,"'" '''! ~ 0 I' ~ 0.. '" .. PIa PICO cr- ---.. r r oIJ --F------ :; I" r "1 , I I Sf ~I "1 "'I 5' ~: I I I << .. :-;--;..... <;::::l~ ~ ~ ~ \\1 ~HA~f'- PKWY ,WI{ '\\ \ -t'l- :;r ... ~ +1,l..., '\ oS 'I ~ -. ..)'0 .. ~::;-;r <"4 '-----.. .... - ";::i - II> ~ ~! z f3 ~ ~ CD::1:< ffi 3 Sl .t- o oil -< ::s > CI) c)o!5 II! .- Ii: 0 ffi LL ~ ig 0.. fil ~ j } c.;.. o ~. "0 0",- ',. ~., ..0 ... ala 0:::1 z . << ' ~ ~ . ~ ~ . 8 ~ ~ .: t.n ~ W !:I ~ <( l:t:: I:: .;.J ~ t!:I- "-- \ ...III.. 76/.. I ...III.. ~ \ f .,.,~. .J. MARGARlTA RD II') ::;- ""III" IJI !.. ""It I" - ...... .. , !: rJ IJ ~ 1 llil I I..... JA/a IS .... ... J.:>:irOIId ,0 ------- ~ I~ 1'" I I I : ~." I PROJECT '" ... 1....1'L": ..~.. r I --:; -.cOUNTRY I .... GLEN WY :' , .. , ,... ~I , lil i 0., ~ PIa PlCO ~ en h CJ ~ o n:: 0... ~\ , ~~ ()~ .\'J g 0; ~ ~ ".. ...... <i ... .-! :: ,.IJ -..+r------ '71"11"' '1' 1 Sf f;J: ~I .0' ~I ~: 1 I I "... O)-~ r-.. ,.~ f3~ ~ ,,-~ (I)~5!. ifi L.. ~ o!I ~ :::::sgCl) < .Q>~O~ I!! LL :J: ~ ~ .~ a. ~ ::= .:::E !!: ~ .~ !d S' ~ (::) ~ \J j 1 ~ \ REDHAWK PKWY \. ...1/1 ..J-l, ~ .oS III..... ,,~ ~'I>.. Z " . . ~. on", Ou:. ~I.. ~a .. ~.~ z . '" ' ~ ~ . b "" <:..0 U ell Z '" Vl W .- z 3: w ~ _ <:: c:: c: -l....l~ "" . . . . ApPENDIX C INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SHEETS l.JNSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engmeers ) LLG Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecu)a Medical Center Addendum N:\1.w3\Re\"Sed-RpI\Re\i:=l.-ThI5\i\ppen:!.~C('l\-erl':1ges.doc EXISTING CONDITIONS lJNscorr.LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) lLG Ref. 3.04.1403 Temecula Medical Center Addendum N:\14{\]\Re~Ri)f\k'iocl-TbbV.pj.>Cl1d.;;xCc"'e,. PagadC\C . . . . . . .. Ex AM scenario: command, Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Men Sep 12, 2005 15,27,51 Page 1-1 Scenario Report Ex AM Ex AM Ex AM Existing Default Impact Fee Default Trip Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths Default Routes Default Configuration Traffix 7.7.1115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA '. Ex PM Men Sep 12, 2005 15,29,36 page 1-1 . -----~-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- scenario: Conunand: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Ex PM Ex PM Ex PM Existing Default Impact Fee Default Trip Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths Default Routes Default Configuration . Traffix 7.7.1115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . '. . . . Ex AM Wed Sep 21, 2005 16,35,10 _____w__________________________________________________________________________ Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 SR 79/Country Glen Way ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 70.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[935.6J ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bou~d Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R _________h_I_____n________, I h_____________1 1_______________1 l--u-h----_h_1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes, 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 ______hn__ 1_______________ II n_n_____h___II__________n___II__u__nn_____1 Volume Module: Base Vol, 161 0 66 0 0 0 0 1111 127 70 1500 0 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Sse: 161 0 66 0 0 0 0 1111 127 70 1500 0 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 PHF Volume, 175 0 72 0 0 0 0 1208 138 76 1630 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 175 0 72 0 0 0 0 1208 138 76 1630 0 h__h____h I----------h---II _____________n II-----n------h Iln---n--uu--1 Critical Gap Module: Critical. Gp: 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx. xxxxx 2.2 xxxx. xxxxx n________h I---uh--------II ---------------II---------------II-------n--nn I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1972 xxxx 472 x.xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx. xxxxx 1346 xxxx xxxxx Potent cap.: 56 xxxx 544 xxxx. xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 518 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap_: 49 xxxx 544 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 518 xxxx xxxxx VOlume/Cap: 3.54 xxxx 0.13 xxxx x:xxx. xxxx xxxx xxxx: xxxx 0.15 xxxx xxxx ___n_______I_______________II_______________ I I------u-------II----n-----nn I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 19.1 xxxx Stopped Del, 1314 xxxx LOS 'by Move: F * Movement: LT - LTR Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx Shrd StpDe1,xxxxx xxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: 935.6 ApproachLOS, F 0.5 12.6 B - RT xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT o _ 5 xxxx xxxxx 13 . 1 xxxx xxxxx B . . LT - LTR - RT xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx x:xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * . . . . . . xxxxxx . Traffix 7.7.1115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA xxxxxx . xxxxxx . Ex PM Wed Sep 21~ 2005 16:35:21 page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 SR 79/Country Glen Way ******************************************************************************** Average Delay {sec/veh}: 264.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[4841.7] ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________ II _______________11___00__________11_______________1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sigo Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes, 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 127 0 72 0 0 0 0 2115 161 66 1108 0 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 127 0 72 0 0 0 0 2115 161 66 1108 0 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.92 0.92 PHF Volume, 138 0 78 0 0 0 0 2299 175 72 1204 0 Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol., 138 0 78 0 0 0 02299 175 721204 0 ------------ I--------u-----II --------------- II --------------- 11_______________ 1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3 .5 xxxx 3 .3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ____________1._______________ 11_______________11 00_____________11_______________1 Capacity Module, Cnflict Vol: 2931 xxxx 854 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2474 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 12 xxxx 306 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 190 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 9 xxxx 306 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 190 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 15.97 xxxx 0.26 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.38 xxxx xxxx. ____________1_______________ II _______________11 _______________11 _______________1 Level Of Service Module: Queue: 18.9 xxxx Stopped Del, 7575 xxxx LOS "by Move: F * Movement: LT - LTR Shared Cap.: xxxx. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx. xxxx Shrd StpDel: xxxxx xxxx Shared LOS: * ... ApproachDel, 4841.7 ApproachLOS: F . 1.0 20.7 C - RT xxxxx xxxx xxx:xx xxxxx xxxx: xxxxx 1. 6 xxxx .xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx 35.1 xxxx. xxxxx ** '* ** * E* '* LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxx. **,. ** * ** * xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx . xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx . . . Traffix 7.7.1115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . . . Ex AM Mon Sep 12, 2005 15:27:52 Page 5-1 Level Of Service .Computation Report 2000 HOM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Margarita Rd/De Portela Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.397 Loss Time {see}: 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.2 Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 I-h------------I I------oo-h----I 1--------- ___00_1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include OVl Min. Green: 5 10 5 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 5 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 u___u_____1 n_nu__uuu II uuuun__n_11 uuuuuu___11 uu_________n I Volume Module: Base Vol, 88 497 49 60 543 14 21 59 70 65 136 77 Gr~wth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 88 497 49 60 543 14 21 59 70 65 136 77 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume, 96 540 53 65 590 15 23 64 76 71 148 84 Reduct Vol< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 96 540 53 65 590 15 23 64 76 71 148 84 PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 96 540 53 65 590 15 23 64 76 71 148 84 nnn__nn I UUhu_____n II nn____n_____II_u__________n II-n------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment: 0.85 0.85 0.76 0.82 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.89 0.76 0.B5 0.85 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat., 1522 3044 1362 2952 2955 76 1522 1602 1362 1522 3044 1362 _nUh_nn 1 n______n_n__11 n_u________n II nn__u___uu II nu_u_nu___1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.06 0.18 0.04 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.52 0.52 0.15 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.40 0.34 'O.OB 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.21 0.40 0.55 0.40 0.33 0.21 Uniform Del, 37.8 14.2 12.2 37.3 15.4 15.4 43.7 42.1 42.8 40.9 38.4 26.8 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.6 4.8 1.5 0.4 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.rr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 38.9 14.3 12.2 37.5 15.6 15.6 44.6 43.7 47.7 42.3 38.8 27.1 User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh, 38.9 14.3 12.2 37.5 15.6 15.6 44.6 43.7 47.7 42.3 38.8 27.1 HCM2kAvg' 3 5 1 1 6 6 1 2 3 3 2 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.1115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA Ex PM Mon Sep 12, 2005 15,29,36 page 3-1 . ------------------------------------------------------------------~------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Margarita Rd/De Portola Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see), Loss Time (see): Optimal Cycle, 100 12 (Y+R = 52 critical Vo1./Cap. (X), 4 sec) Average Delay (secfveh): Level Of Service: 0.641 26.8 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________I_______________II____n_________II_________~n___II_____n________I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 5 10 5 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ____________1_______________11_______________11 _______________11_______________1 Volume Module: Base Vol, 96 866 96 75 689 5 32 219 252 45 60 45 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 96 866 96 75 689 5 32 219 252 45 60 45 User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume, 104 941 104 82 749 5 35 238 274 49 65 49 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 104 941 104 82 749 5 35 238 274 49 65 49 PeE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol., 104 941 104 82 749 5 35 238 274 49 65 49 ____________1_______________11 ___________n__1 1_______________1 I--n-----------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Adjustment, 0.86 0.86 0.77 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.90 0.77 0.86 0.86 0.77 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 15393078 1377 29863053 22 15391620 1377 15393078 1377 __________n I-----n------n II n_______nn__ 11_______________11_______________\ Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat, 0.07 0.31 0.08 0.03 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.15 0.20 0.03 0.02 0.04 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle, 0.11 0.47 VOlume/Cap: 0.60 0.65 Uniform Del: 42.2 20.0 IncremntDel: 5.7 1.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj, 1.001.00 De1ay/Veh, 47.9 21.1 User DelAdj' 1.001.00 AdjDe1/veh, 47.9 21.1 HCM2kAvg, 4 12 5 . **** **** **** 0.47 0.16 15.0 0.1 0.0 1.00 15.2 1.00 15.2 2 0.05 0.55 46.4 4.2 0.0 1.00 50.6 1.00 50.6 2 0.41 0.60 23.1 0.8 0.0 1.00 23.9 1.00 23.9 10 0.41 0.60 23.1 0.8 0.0 1.00 23.9 1.00 23.9 10 0.12 0.19 39.7 0.5 0.0 1.00 40.2 1.00 40.2 1 0.31 0.48 28.1 0.7 0.0 1.00 28.8 1.00 28.8 6 0.31 0.65 29.9 3.5 0.0 1.00 33.4 1.00 33.4 8 0.05 0.64 46.6 16.2 0.0 1.00 62.8 1.00 62.8 3 0.24 0.09 29.6 0.1 0.0 1.00 29.7 1. 00 29.7 1 0.29 0.12 26.3 0.1 0.0 1.00 26.4 1.00 26.4 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.1115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO. CA . . . . Prepared by. JOSe R Nunez Jr Transportation Planner II TRAFFfC IMPACT ANALYSIS TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER T emecula, California November 4, 2004 Prepared for. HKS, Inc. 1919 McKinney Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 LLG Ref. 3-04-1403 Under the Supervision of: John Boarman Principal U_low& Greenspan. Engille8rs 4S(2 Ruffner Sm!et Suite 100 San Diego,: CA92111 B58300B800 T 858.3008810 f 'M'wWngengmeers..com TABLE OF CONTENTS - PAGE SECTION 1.0 Intruduction .............................................................................................................................. 2.0 Pr.oject Description.................................................................................................................. 2.1 Project Description.. ........ ......... ........ .......m... ....... .... .... ........... ......... ......................... ... .m... .... ... 2.2 Project Access ... ...... ... ............... ..... ...... .m ............... .... .......... ...... ........... ................... ............................... 3.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. J.l Existing Street Network ........................ ................ ..m.. ............. ...... m .... ...... .. .................... ... 3..2 Existing Traffic Volumes.. ... ..... ..... ................... ...... ........................ ..... ... 4.0 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................. 4.1 Methodology................ ...... .......................m...... ... .... ...... ... ... ...... ......... 4.1..1 Signalized Intersections.................... ...... .................. 4 12 Unsignalized Intersections'. ............. .............. ...................... ...... 5.0 P:ruject Trips - Phase .............................................................................................................. 5..1 Trip Generation ... m........... .......................... ............................ ... ..... .................. ...'. ... ...... ................................. 5..2 Trip Distribution......................... ......... ......... ............. ........ .m.. m.'.' .. ............... .m... ... ... 5.3 Trip AssignmenL.................... .......... ...... ............ . ................. ....... ...... .......... .............. ................................ 6.0 Cumulative Projects...........................................:.................................................................... 6.1 Other Developments Description......... .................... ......... .............. ... ........ ...... ..............m......... 7.0 Sign.ifi.cance Criteria....................._......................................................................................... 12 8.0 Near-Term Analysis ................................................................................................................ 13 8.1 Near-Term Analysis. ............................................ .............m........... .............. ...... 13 8..1.1 Intersections......... ....... . m........ .... ... . .m........... ...... ...............m.. 13 8.1.2 Roadway Links... ............................ ....... ..... ..................... .................. ..... ..... 13 8.2 Background Traffic without PlOject Phase I Operations........ ......... .............. ..................... 13 8.2.1 Intersections.... ...... .................. .................................................. ......................13 8..2.2 Roadway Links.... ............... ..... ................. ................ ..... ................... .............. 13 8.3 Background Traffic with Project Phase I Operations. ................ ........ ..... ....... ...... ... ...... .. 13 83..1 Intersections... .. .......... ........... .. ... .... .... ......... ... .................. ... ....... ... ........... ......... 13 8.3..2 Roadway Links ................... .... ..................... .... ... m.............. .'.'" .... .. ............... 14 8.4 Background Traffic with Phase I Improvements.............. ............. ..................... 14 8..4.1 Intersections .... ............ .... .... ........... .............. ..... . 14 8.4.2 Roadway Links....... ... ..........m.................... .. m............ 14 1 2 2 2 .3 .3 .3 5 6 6 7 ; 8 I 8 I I 8 I I 8 I e 9 I 9 , i LINSCOTT. LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) ILG Ref. 3-04.1403 I'emecuta Medical Center e . . . , , TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) SECT'ON PAGE 9.0 Project Access Discussion ....................................................................................................... 17 10.0 Existing with Project Phase I Analysis.................................................................................. 18 11.0 Total Project Analysis ......................_...._................................................................................. 19 11.1 Trip Generation SummaJY............. .............. ........ ...... ...... ................ . .................... 19 11.2 Trip Distribution/Assignment ................ .......... .....,............. .......................................,. 19 11.3 Background Traffic with Total Project Operations. . . ................,.......... ..... .......... .. ....... 20 11.3.1 Intersectious....... .... ...... ........... ......... ...... ... ... ..... ........ .............. .... ... 20 11.3.2 Roadway Links..... ,. ....... ...... .... ..... ..... ... ............... ... ........... ... ................. ....... 20 12.0 Findings and Recommendations................................................................,........................... 21 12.1 Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures....... .................. .............. .... ..........."....,. .. 21 12.2 Circulation Recommendatious. .......................................... ................... .......22 lINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) LLGRet 3-{)4.1403 I emecula Medical Center ii e ApPENDICES APPENDIX A. Manual Peak Hour and ADT Traffic Volume sheets B. Intersection Level of Service Analysis sheets C. Roadway Link Analysis Thresholds (Riverside County & City of Temecula) D. ITE Trip Generation Rates E. Cumulative Projects Analysis LIST OF FIGURES SECTION-FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE 1-1 Vicinity Map....... ..................... ............... ............. ....... ........................... ................ . ..... ......... ........... 1 1-2 Project Area Map ... ..... ................. . .................... .......... .................... ...... ... ... .... ............ 1 2-1 Site Plan .......... ........... ................. ......... .............. .............. .... .......... .... ........ ................. ..... .... ...... .................. ...... 2 3-1 Existing Conditions Diagram.......... ........... .... ... ....... . ...... ......... ........ ....... .. ...... ............ 3 3-2 ExistingTraffic Volumes............ ...... ............................. . .............................. .. ................ 4 5-1 Regional TrafficDisttibution................... .......... ................ .............. 8 5-2 "Typical Day"Project Traffic Volumes..............:......... ...m........... ............... . ............................. 8 6-1 Cumulative Traffic Volumes... .......................... ........................... ...................... ....11 6-2 Existing + "TyPical Day" Project + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes . 11 11-1 Total Project Tl3ffic Volumes .. ................ ............. ......................... ........ 19 11-2 Background Tl3ffic with Total Project Traffic Volumes .... ....... .......... ................. ........ .... .... .... 19 12-1 Proposed Mitigation Measures..................................... ............... .............................. ..23 - iii ) LLG Ref~ 3..Q4~1403 Iemecula Medical Center ~ lWSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers . . . LIST OF TABLES SECTION-TABLE #PAGE 3-1 4-1 5-1 7-1 8-1 8-2 11-1 11-2 11-3 12-1 12-2 12-3 Existing ADT Volumes............... ..... ....... ...... ..... ................. .......... ...............................,.... ..... 4 Level of Service Th.esholds for Unsignalized Intersections. ... ..... ..... ........... ...... 7 Phase I Project Trip Generation...... ...... .....m........... ............. ........... 8 Significance Criteria ................... ........ ... .. ..... ..... ........ ... .. ... 11 Intersection Operations ... ........................... .....m...... ................. 15 Segment Operations..... .............................. .....". .......... ............ . ....16 Phase II Trip Generation ... ..... ... m....... ... .... ........ ............................. .... .... 19 Total Project Intersection Operations................ ...... ............. ...... ............... . ........ 21 Total Project Roadway Link Analysis .. ............ ............... ... ............. .. ........... ........ 22 Requued Mitigation Measmes.............. ... ..... ....... ...........m. ...... ... 23 Intersection Traffic Conltibutions PM Peak Hour Phase L..... m..' ...... ..... 25 Intersection Traffic Contributions PM Peak Hour Total Project. .. ... .......... ...... ...... .... .m..... .... 26 liNSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN engineers iv ) LID Re[ 3...Q4~1403 r emecula Medical Center TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER Temecula, California November 4,2004 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following traffic study has been prepared to determine and evaluate the traffic impacts on the local circulation system due to the development of the Temecula Medical Center project in Temecula. The development program consists of two phases. A description of each phase is detailed in Section 2 ofthis repo1t. The project site is located on the north side of SR 79, approximately 2 miles east ofl-15 in the City of Temecula.. Figure 1-1 shows the general vicinity of the project. Figure 1-2 shows a more detailed project area map. Included in this analysis are: )> Project DesCliption; )> Existing Conditions DescIiption; )> Project Traffic Generation; )> Project Traffic Disl1ibution; )> Project Traffic Assignment; )> Background Traffic Discussion; )> Traffic Analysis Methodology; )> Intersection and street segment capacity analyses; )> Project Access discussion; )> Existing with Phase I Analysis; )> Total Project Analysis; and )> Findings and Recommendations. lINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN engineers ) LLG Re[ 3.04-1403 Temecula Medical Center 1 . - i i i I J I . . I ..J _.../~ . RIVERSIDE COUNlY SAN r:IEGO COUHT'l' CAI.lP PENIllLTON :':':':':SAN:'::.~ .:-:.:.:.ONOFRE .:.:.:.... ........... ...... .n....... ... ........ ........................ ...................... .......................... uu....................... un ................... .................... ................. ................. ..... ..........n. ...... .....................n.... ............................ ............................... ................................. .................................. ................................ .........-.......................... ..................................... ...................................... ::::::::::\:::::::::::~~:.. ................ .................... ............... ............................. .........................- ...-...............-....-... ..... ............-.................. ............- ...................-.......... ..................... . .....-...-...- .......-............_...-........... 1!<iifll<l<Jlil<!fi.~< .::::::::::::::~::::..:;::::::::?::.:.:..:.........:. :{:{}}}:::.{j6::.:}}}rr:::::::{::i\:0t ...............................................~.................................................................... ...:.........:...}r:rrr~{?:rr{{::::::::::}:: ....-......._-......_.._.--.............::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::-:.:.:-:::::::::::. :::...::::::.:::::::::~::::::::::::::::M...:!iiiM.::... ............,-.-.-.....-.............. ........-....................................... ..----...... .. ............................-........................... .......-........................................ ... .--...........--.--............. --. ............... ......u.................................................. .................._..........."........................,... ........................................................--.. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:...:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:pACiFiC.. :.::\:::.:::'::.::~:::::::::...:::....:::/.(j)::::.:::::.::.:::::;:~~I::':::. .. ..........................:..:;:\::::..:...9.:.::::::.::.:::::::::........::....:.. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::.:::::::.:::::::ii;i:::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::.... '::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::{:::;:::::::::;:;::::::::::::::~::::::::::::?::::::::?:)::{:::: 2m _'.:::':::':'- r:::::r:{?::::::.:.{::>?{:t:t:::r:t::::{::.:::?::f8lJi........ ... u.:..:.......r........f...........tH..:{j......mTITI::... ..................-.......................... ..--..........._............... ...........--.................... ......................_--............ ...-.....................--................................. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.::.:.:::::::::::.":.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::.:::.:.:.:),j;;~. :r.:..:t:.:t:?::iI:}}:!t{ii:l::-:I{::::!.;: US' ""'OCO ..--......... ----.-......... .-----................--...........--.........-. ............................ ..................... .... ................., ...............n.................... ........................................... nn.................... ~ a --.....--.,...... ..-.- ....-...........-.... .............. . ...-..- ...-.......-.............-.- ........ ................ ...........-......--..----.......... --..............,... ..........................- ......................... ................ ..-.......,... ......-............ .......................-.-.-.-..-. o SOURCE; LLG Engineers; 2004 MILES . Fi 9 u re VICINIlY MAP 1-1 TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER I.-I ~ , \ '\~ ~\ ~ ~ >- t " ' '~I F\ , /' . ~ - :"}, --". ~~ N 0- Ct: I ..~. ~ 0 LS l' z ~ ~ Q) t; c L w :::!! ::J ..",. ..., :s 0 0)0::: ::l u ._ i 0- w I :::!! u.' W I- e i i .. <> <> N .s ~ " ;0 z . <C - .... Q. . .... '" ~ 0 c<I '" . U W '" ,. w '" Z <C '" . -' -l '" . . 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Description The Temecula Medical Center project proposes the construction of a 320-bed hospital with 140,000 sf of medical office space.. The proposed project is located on the north side of SR 79, approximately 2 miles east of 1-15. The existing site is currently undeveloped. The project proposes to be developed in two phases, as described below: PHASE I: Phase I of the project would initially construct a 170-bed hospital with 80,000 sf of medical office space. PHASE II: Phase II of the project would expand the hospital to its ultimate 320 bed configuration. In addition, the project would add 60,000 sfofmedical office space. 2.2 Project Access . Site access for both phases is proposed via two driveways to SR 79 and one driveway to De Portola Road The western SR 79 driveway located directly opposite Country Glen Way is proposed to be signalized and the east driveway will function as a right turn in/right turn out driveway. The driveway to De Portola Road was assumed to be unsignalized with full access provided. Reciprocal access with the adjacent property to the west is also proposed. Figure 2-1 shows the site plan.. . lINSCOTT, LAw & GREENsPAN, engineers ) no Ref. 3-04.1403 f"emecuJa Medical Center 2 i ~ Z [t: ! ~~ :5 ~ , I i os Z I lIJ lJ.. ~ 0 N w z l- V) U I (J) i5 w !.... ::;: ::J ~ 0') ::> U e_ W lL. :::!: ~ ~ , I I I 1 I / // //1 ~j I 1 <:.! r,f:.--/...-._ I ; ---- I ! , 5~ "'''' '" ~ - .; o ...... - ui "" J: W U 0:: ::> o lIJ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ .... lIJ ~ 00(5::::: t:: u l.U .... ~~u.J ~ _ c:C 0::: 1:: ...J.....I~ ~ . . 3.0 ExiSTING CONDITIONS The following provides a blief description of the existing street system in the project area. Street classifications are based on the City of Temecula Circulation Plan. Figure .3-1 shows an existing conditions diagram.. 3.1 Existing Street System SR 79 is classified as a Six-Lane Prime Arterial in the project area. Currently, SR 79 is a six-lane roadway in the project vicinity. Curbside parking is generally prohibited along SR 79, and the posted speed limit is 45 mph. La Paz Street is a two-lane undivided roadway in the project area. The posted speed limit is .35 mph, and cOlbside parking is generally permitted.. La paz Street is signalized at SR 79. Pala Road is currently a fourclane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is prohibited at the approach to SR 79, but is otherwise permitted, The posted speed limit on Pala Road is 50 mph. Pala Road is signalized at SR 79.. Avenida de Missiones is a four-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Avenida de Missiones is currently unsignalized at its intersection with SR 79.. Curbside parking is generally permitted, and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. Avenida de Missiones is proposed to be signalized at SR 79 as part of the Rancho Community ChOlCh project. . Margarita RoadJRedhawk Parkway is classified as a four-lane Major roadway in the project area.. Margarita Road is currently a four-lane divided roadway in the project area with cOlbside parking generally prohibited.. Redhawk Parkway is also clUrentlya four.-Iane divided roadway in the project area with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Marg<IIita RoadlRedhawk Parkway is signalized at SR 79. Butterfield Stage Road is classified as a four-lane Major roadway in the project area. Butterfield Stage Road is clUrently a fourclane divided roadway in the project ar.ea with cOlbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Butterfield Stage Road is signalized at SR 79. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Table 1-1 summarizes the existing average daily traffic (ADY) volumes on the major area roadways. ADT volumes on area roadways tInoughout the project area are based upon the latest traffic data collected by LLG Engineers at the key intersections and factored up from the peak holU counts using the following formula for each intersection leg: . PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) * 12 = ADT . 3 ) llG Ref. 3-()4-1403 1 emecula Medical Center lINSCOTT.LAW & GREENSPAN engineers '- bP. st~G$ 1'l> 3~~ ~ ~ ::>'" ",g, '" '" ~.A'tE15 ~~ o z >. ~>. Q)" 0 c O.~ .3eO o a. c: "0 L. .5:!~~"C ~I-"- Q) o Q) > -tJ:ij::Q c: c: O<+- C:'~ O>C-,O Ol CD 1J 0_ CCc:....J=' (f) .2' 0'0- L.. G) U(/)~U1~~~~C: ._ 0.. -'" 0 ;;; 0.2 ::=00"00........ - o O)_..I: '- o L.~c:Q)OcnOO:l Z I-VlVl;;::z12~~O W f , 1-1-"- [;3 I f I I I f I -' @)~,*<l~g5::>C1 "'1="'-.1- . "- : : 111'- r"01": r : 1Il : tlf,... ~ J . o . !< : It) ~ -- I I'i') Q) lr- :J rn .- l.J.... ~ ~ o (J) z o ..... o z o u Cl z lii (J 0: W I- Z P CI W :::0 ~ ::> o W .:::E W I- - I '" . "'" - I- ~ . I- ~ . 0 0/1 '" ~ w ~ ~ ;:: ~ '" '" "'" '" ~ oJ oJ ~ . . Existing peak hommanual intersection counts were conducted during the traditional weekday AM (7:00 - 9:00) and PM (4:00 - 6:00) peak hours on March 23,2004. Figur-e 3-2 shows the AMJPM peak hour. turning movement volumes at the key intersections. Appendix A contains the manual count sheets.. TABLE 1-1 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES . STREET SEGMENT YEAR VOLUME (ADT) SR 79 West ofI-15 freeway 2004 17,700 West of Pal a Road 2004 57,300 West of Margarita Road 2004 38,700 West of Butterfield Stage Road 2004 20,400 East ofButteIfield Stage Road 2004 15,200 PaIa Road SouthofSR 79 2004 34,000 Redhawk Parkway South of SR 79 2004 18,000 Butterfield Stage Road North ofSR 79 2004 12,400 South ofSR 79 2004 10,700 SOURCE: AD!, estimated from the ApproachiEJ<i1 volume, during the PM peak hour at the key intersections . 4 ) LLG Ref. 3..04-1403 I emecula Medical Center LINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ~ ~ 'Ii, st~Gy, l<Il ~tl'\'lEI'f\~ ......'l6 e~ _'C..'4 ",-10/\'61) ~'?l.-;' -r ~;/.I\'''~ ~~ )\,-~tl~~G. l<Il -f'J -..\f.. ""'l.f>Q;,...r ~..,~ "'I''f:!~ 'C..~- \~ ~~~ -~- ,-"" I'ID~ DE ~~~SSIOl'y,S : ..... Ql r-- ~.!" ':\~.. ~.Jf\.\. ../i; fI~~r/., It e. ;;/~'i -'" ,- .'/i~' e-Ol'~ 9V,{ . V,... ~~~ \~ ~o~ !~ .(so "vo' "7 =.'E I' I""~. : g~ . ~N . " . om . ~~ : ~- '-...lm/ZtL: ,L!f6/l89 : 1'-- II' ~~ ~- ~5 o~ ~~ 10 ~ ~~ o z Q) .... o "'''' Q)e Eo :::I+:i -0 OQ) >", ........ :J~ oe .<:'- -,,'" 0'<: "'.... 0...... o ::lie 0..;= '-0 ~~ I ~ b z N I tt') Q) ~ ::s C> .- La.. UlUl 0:: lLILLJ ~ ~~~ (,) 0:: 15 ~i:i:5 ~ :I: :5 ::> O~ ~ za. w - I- In::e (;Sa. ~ . z ~ "" - >- 0- ~ >- '" ~ 0 <Xl z ~ u '" w z 3: w '" ::; "" '" ~ ...J '"' ~ G:i '" . . . 4.0 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This oaffic analysis assesses the key intersections and street segments in the project area. Based on discussions with City of Temecula staff and the anticipated disoibution of the project traffic, the specific study area includes the following intersections and roadway links: Signalized Intelllections ~ SR 79 / Interstate 15 southbowxd ramps; ~ SR 79 / Interstate 15 northbound ramps; ~ SR 79 / La paz So.eet; ~ SR 79 / Pa1a Road; ~ SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones; ~ SR 79 / Redhawk Palkway; ~ SR 79 / Butterfield Stage Road; and ~ Margooita Road / De Portola Road. Roadway Links ~ SR 79: West ofl-15 Fwy; ~ SR 79: West ofPa1a Road; ~ SR 79: West of Margalita Road; ~ SR 79: West of Butterfield Stage Road; ~ SR 79: East of Butterfield Stage Road; ~ Pa1a Road: South of SR 79; ~ Redhawk Pookway: South of SR 79; ~ Butterfield Stage Road: North ofSR 79; and ~ Butterfield Stage Road: South ofSR 79. The study alea intersections and roadway links wer.e analyzed in the following scenooios to determine the impacts to the road netwOlk: ) Existing traffic ~ Background Traffic without Phase I Operations ~ Background Traffic with Phase I Operations ~ Background Traffic with Phase I with Improvements ~ Background Traffic with Total Project Operations >- Background Traffic with Total Project with Improvements lINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) It-G Re[ 3-04-1403 TemecuJa Medical Center 5 4.1 Methodology Inter sections and roadway links are analyzed in this repo1t. . The meaSUIe of effectiveness for intersection and segment operations is level of service. In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Level of Service for signalized inf.e1sections is defined in terms of delay.. The level of service analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver. discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The following is a discussion of the methodologies utilized to analyze intersections and roadway links 4.1.1 Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per. vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period.. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 4-1 summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections.. Appendix B contains the peak hoUI. intersection analysis worksheets for the weekday analysis. Level of service A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10..0 seconds per. vehicle). This OCCUIS when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at aiL Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of service B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.. . Level of service C describes operations with delay in the range 20..1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failUIes may begin to appear. The number. of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass tluough the intersection without stopping. Level of service D describes operations with delay in the range 35..1 seconds and 55.0 seconds per vehicle.. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may Iesult from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher vlc ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the plOportion of vehicles not stopping declines.. Individual cycle failures are more frequent. 6 ) LLG Ret 3-04.1403 lemecula Medical Center . LINSCOTT, LAW& GREENSPAN, engineers . . . TABLE 4-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNALIZED INIERSEClIONS Average Control Delay Per Vehide ISecondoNehiele) Level Ot Service 0.0 :0: 10.0 A 101 to 20.0 B 211 to 35..0 C 351 to 550 D 551 to 800 E ~ 80.0 F Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 4.1.2 Roadway Link Analysis ADT volumes on arterial highways throughout the project area are based upon the latest traffic data collected by LLG EngineCls at the key intersections and factored up from the peak hour counts using the following fotmula for each intersection leg: PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) * 12 = ADT Appendix C contains the roadway link analysis thresholds for RivClside County and City of Temecula arterial highways. LINSCOTT. LAw & GREENSPAN engineers ~ LlO ReE 3.{)4.1403 IemeculaMedical Center 7 5.0 PROJECT TRIPS - PHASE I 5.1 Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed development were calculated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates (7th Ed.) for the Medical Office Building (36.13 II ksf) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) "Brie/Guide a/Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates" (April 2002) for the Hospital portion ofthe project (20 ADT / Bed). The SANDAG late for hospitaIs was used instead of the IrE late (about 12 ADT per bed) in order to provide a more conservative analysis. Table 5-1 shows that Phase I of the project is calculated to generate a total of 6,290 ADT with 350 inbound 1124 outbound trips during the AM peak hoUI and 214 inbound 1415 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The total project trip generation is outlined later in the report. Appendix D provides the ITE and SANDAG Trip Generation Tables TABLE 5-1 PHASE I TRIP GENERAIION Daily AM PM Land Use Size Trip Ends Peak Hour. Trips Peak Hour Trips Rate ADT %of In,Out Volume %uf In,Out Volume ADT Split In Out ADT Split In Out Hospital 170 Beds 20.0/Bed" 3,400 8% 70:30 190 82 10% 40:60 136 204 Medical Office. 80,000 sf 36.I3IksF 2,890 7% 79:21 160 42 10% 27:73 78 211 rotals: - 6)90 - - 350 \24 - - 214 415 F(#}tnoteJ: a Source: SANDAG 'Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic GeneratioD Rates'> April 2002. b. HE Trip Generation Rates (1dro Ed.). 5.2 Trip Distribution The project phase I ttaffic was disttibuted to the stt.eet system based on project access, the characteristics of the roadway system, the proximity to 1-15, the locations of surrounding residential communities, the location of other hospitals, and existing traffic counts along SR 79.. Based on the project characteristics, Figure 5-1 presents the estimated project traffic disttibution in the site environs. 5.3 Trip Assignment The assignment of project phase I traffic to the surrounding circulation system was based on the estimated distribution and is illustrated in Figure 5-2. The majority of the project trips (78%) were assigned to the SR 79 access points with a lesser per.centage of project ttips to the access point on De POItola Road (28%). Other factors considered in determining trip assignment were the location of the medical office buildings and parking space placement. UNSCOTT, lAw & GREENSPAN. engineers ) LLG Ref. 3-04-1403 1 emecula Medical Center 8 . . . . t:!;l Sl,G~ t<ll ..';,srt~ . . t:fd ~,,1E t6 tfl C.A~ "U'it,Gl' /iA'I ~/~ l '>i t$J gl' .~tlfS c o :oJ :> .0 .... ..... ., o o :;:: - ~ ~ o c o OJ Q) cr o I ~~ (!'~ 1S lJ) o z T- I L() Q) 1- ::J 0> e- lL. ... o ...... '" .:::. ... z o i= ::::> (D C2 In o Q. C2 ~ -I <: z o (!) UJ a:: cr w ~ z w U ...J () o w :0 :5 ::> u w :0 I!:! z ~ 1- ~ ~ >- ~ ~ o cX5 Z l::. U l..Ll '_ c.n;:: w Cl :::: < e::= s:: ...J...J~ CU a; rr N I L(') (/) (/) 0: ....0: ~ ~5 ~. c5:C .J >~ C3 (,)~ 0 _^ w u.. u.. :!: u... ~~ :5 l-Q. ~ .......u -::E W ....< G:l (/) I- < :c Q. ~ 6 0: Q. ~~ o z <> ~ '" <A - ".. ~ - >"/" \( ~5'~Gt~ /"...... ""\\(. '21> ~-;.:!.. --" ~lll'" Q) L ::l Ol e- lL. st~Gt ~ ~tstlf$~ ~. ~~ 0... ~ .. ... a co ..co Eg ;JO- -.... aU >~ \..\.. :::>.21 ac: .s=,"- x" a'<::: .,.... [L_ a ~c [L~ '-0 ~.<::: <co I ';O~ ~".\ )\ ..--,1' ~) ""\ 1r1}i 9:..--' ~ .. .,,/,OJ' ~ ..~ ~ ~O:: -0 ,. -;'r- ..- ~p.' )\ ( ",...... ...\( ", \Q-s.~ ~--~ ,"~'i" t;~ ~ll) o g: ",'6 -<. ?~ )\ ,0/"...... \ \Il ~ =~Dt ~.~G,!tS . ~ W t- O Z ,,~ ~v ~~ II,. "-<<Is' & 'f,? t " v ~ ~ lD ~ ... ~ ... '" ...... ... z: ~ .... <( - .... 0.. ~ 80i5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "- _<ca: t:l'I ~-Jt!) : . \jrtti<S'l'J>.1t 15 Gi '" . 6.0 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC To assess Opening Year uaffic conditions, eXIsting uaffic plus uaffic from other proposed sunounding developments, plus a 4 percent growth rate to the existing u.affic volumes were determined. This together constitutes the baseline background traffic.. The growth rate was utilized to account for area wide traffic growth. The one exception to this methodology is at the I-15/SR 79 interchange where the background without project traffic volwnes were obtained fiom the Apis Plaza Traffic Study (the background with project volumes). This was done to be consistent with past studies at this critical location. Discussions with City of Temecula staff and the authors of the most recent uaffic study conducted in the area indicated that" The Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared by RK Engineering Group in December 2002 should be utilized as the somce of other. development project information in the area. 6.1 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS DESCRIPTION Following are brief descriptions of each of the seventeen (17) other development projects included in this report.. The locations of these projects and trip distribution percentages as obtained fiom The Apis Plaza TIaffic hnpact Analysis, December 2002 are included in Appendix E.. 1. Temecula Senior Car.e Facility - includes a retirement community, congr.egate care and a medical office. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,214 daily trips, with 128 trips in the AM peak hour (90 inbound and 38 outbound) and 205 trips in the PM peak hom (79 inbound and . 126 outbound). . 2. 500 single-family home Subdivision - includes single-family detached residential units adjacent to the Temecula Cleek golf comse. The proposed project is estimated to generate 4,785 daily trips, with 375 uips in the AM peak hour (94 inbound and 281 outbound) and 505 trips in the PM peak homo (318 inbound and 187 outbound). 3.Tentative Tract Map .30180 - includes commelcial/retail uses.. The proposed project is estimated to generate 4,894 daily trips, with 114 trips in the AM peak homo (70 inbound and 44 outbound) and 450 trips in the PM peak hom (216 inbound and 234 outbound). 4.Temecula Creek - includes a hotel and convention center The proposed project is estimated to generate 515 daily trips, with 29 uips in the AM peak hour (17 inbound and 12 outbound) and 46 trips in the PM peak hour (25 inbound and 21 outbound). 5.Vail Rauch Towne Ceuter - includes office and retail uses.. The proposed project is estimated to generate 6,036 daily uips, with 426 trips in the AM peak hour (266 inbound and 166 outbound) and 488 trips in the PM peak hom (193 inbound and 295 outbound). 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 2947.3 - includes single-family detached residential units The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,326 daily trips, with 182 nips in the AM peak hour (46 inbound and 136 outbound) and 245 trips in the PM peak hom (158 inbound and 87 outbound). . 9 ) 11.G Ref. 3...()4-1403 I emecula Medica] Center LINSCOTT,LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 7.Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 - includes single-family detached residential units. The . proposed proj ect is estimated to generate 1,225 daily trips, with 96 trips in the AM peak hour (24 inbound and 72 outbound) and 129 trips in the PM peak hour (83 inbound and 46 outbound). 8.Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 - includes single-family detached residential units.. The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,168 daily trips, with 91 trips in the AM peak hour (23 inbound and 69 outbound) and 123 trips in the PM peak hour (79 inbound and 44 outbound). 9.High School - is a proposed 3,000-student high school. The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,370 daily trips, with 1,380 trips in the AM peak hour (960 inbound and 420 outbound) and 450 trips in the PM peak how. (180 inbound and 270 outbound). 10. Pechanga Casino Expansion - includes expansion of the existing casino located southwest of the SR 79/Pala Road intersection. The proposed project is estimated to generate 18,000 daily trips. I1.Margarita Canyon - includes commercial/retail land uses. The proposed project is estimated to generate 7,909 daily trips, with 184 trips in the AM peak how. (112 inbound and 72 outbound) and 733 trips in the PM peak how (352 inbound and 381 outbound). 12.Rancho Community Church includes a vaIiety of land uses other than the church including a p1ivate kindergarten - 8th grade school, a private high school, a preschool as well as 15 acres of general retail/office (retail) uses. The total project is estimated to generate 5,136 daily trips, with 706 trips in the AM peak how (462 inbound and 244 outbound) and 410 trips in the PM peak how. (161 inbound and 249 outbound). . 13.WoU Creek - single-family detached residential units. The proposed project (assumed to be 1,000 DU's) is estimated to generate 9,570 daily nips, with 675 nips in the AM peak hour (169 inbound and 506 outbound) and 909 nips in the PM peak hour (572 inbound and 337 outbound). 14.MOI.gan Hill- includes single-family detached 1esidential units, an Elementary school, and a park. The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,430 daily trips, with 621 trips in the AM peak hour (253 inbound and 368 outbound) and 564 trips in the PM peak hoUl (338 inbound and 226 outbound). 15.Tentative Tract Map 24188 - includes 291 apartments. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,507 daily trips, with 2,507 nips in the 196 AM peak how. (49 inbound and 147 outbound) and 265 trips in the PM peak houI' (170 inbound and 95 outbound). 10 ) [LG Re!.3-04-1403 I emecula Medical Center . Uf'{SOOTT,LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers . 16.Apis Plaza - includes commerciaVretail, as well as a fast food restaurant, and a high twnover sit- down restaurant. The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,345 daily trips, with 230 trips in the AM peak how. (127 inbound and 103 outbound) and 462 trips in the PM peak how. (230 inbound and 232 outbound). 17.Paloma Del Sol Office Building - includes 75,000 square feet of office space. The proposed project is estimated to generate 958 daily trips, with 134 trips in the AM peak how (118 inbound and 16 outbound) and 147 trips in the PM peak how (25 inbound and 122 outbound). FigUJe 6-1 depicts the Background without Project Phase I Traffic AM and PM peak hour traffic assignment.. Figure 6-2 depicts the Background Traffic with Project Phase I AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes . . 11 )0 lLG Ref: 3-04-1403 I emecula Medical Centel LJNSCOIT,LAw & GREENSPAN. engineers a~ ~~G~ \<ll .. .. ~ 'lr- ..a t;p~ .......\()',,',p> ~-&l. ..-.1-l:J1/,,!>'l.'l ~ f'"r-.... (~'ft :tt'f~m: ) \ '- ail1~G~ \<ll ) -,\r &'l1,t> -..- ---~~ ~/~" GJ.~~ 1.&4/ "i~~ ,,<~ :I '1 ~~fl'15 .~.:h' '.}liD' ,';; t;~ . ~CIl If . _.~~... en "" r-- ::7> ~ ~ ~'7/1'" \'- (.. \1...... -,\( ,/0-'" o~t"'" 1>_ -;p~ ~. -:o,.,ro~ p~ ~,~O~ '6\ ~% ~c... ~~ \'!' \ % c. < '!' ~ Q~ 4'" '7 it'f:.." n;j.... .','r;, ..//~ - \,. OS /.<'{'J ......,,~,...,!) A<: -" ,.... '1:/;:;'1 Oll':--'" <JAil .. }/~... -"'J ~f ~~ Of' .- ~- o. ~g "" I\,. ...j '-699 /067.- ,l!c!;l/1>~'i~ II" mo ~~ ....~ _0 -. 00 -- It) III L- a Ol III Ol E a ::>-- -..... 00 > CD Ol L. L. ;:].2 o c .s::,"- 'y'<l> a'<: CD..... a...... a :::!:c a. 3: ........0 :::!:.<: <(Ol w b z ~~ o z ~ UHIl ll:: LaJ a::: W ~::l _I- 30 OI >~ g "LS 0 LLn. W ~~ ~ I-n. ::J ..........0 _~ W LaJ <( 2i !;2 l- I n. ~ LaJ (3 a::: n. !5 o ~ 3: z . >- <: ~ >- "- ~ o ~ tn IU u......z t:: ~ 3:: ~ '- _ <c g:: I::'t ......-JCj : I <.0 Q) L :J 0) .- La.... ". o ...... en '" ...... ". G:i '" " iL ~ o Z ::l o a::: ~ ~ . . . . . ~~~ ~tb<;' "" "Q~~ ........ \0\ ,~~~ r-,;-t- (~~/~"~~UJ )\~ \ 1l\r!'~G" \lIl ~) .., r '''',\17.:..--r ';~~ ,,0 1"l.7SJ~ ol>~- ~\'1. ~~"l ';I..c-fl> ~~~ rP/ \)'3' a-~ "- c.""... $.01) lV'l, \\'2.' ~ ('\& . )\'-' . . _, ,.J ..,\r.. fiJ..l -^ilo. r::~'" ~f\~-.....tD~,", '.,01 -.;;,-;:"";: . ';i}d)t"'" iifri'\<S'l'.T~ ;5 ....... .....$~ ~~.... "'i~~ ,,-~:~')Jl1e.:.. ...~.... ____ ":J~II."'" )\~ ('" ..I"') ..,\r ~^,,~;.A" "'1>fQ ~r.~ ~~~ ;;l!l;\~ t;~ ~Cil o Ii: . Il" .~O""S . :g:;'" II ""i~ " t"'" "-'lit,,,, \'-' (" "O-..,\f.. ,/G~ Orlf"' ~- ~,., ~-~ ~ .t& /!:J-~ -2J."~ <'Vt3~ ? Q~~ If :t~~f'~/l. ~/C'A /j< '-" _/'/!l Ol~:--"" l/l ). ),~ ' oJ: ~ --f{f ~'J.~ R:!! ~~ ~ ~~ -~ )\ ...-'" ..,\ ~~ ,; C%~"'Ci'";:" ....~ -;.! ~l ~ \'"' ,0/"''' \ ~ ~ , .. ....n. Nn ~~ ~~ ~...... ~~ NN '--069 l\Oz~ N I\,. r6~l;"lS'1 II'" ~~ NN .......... -~ u ~~ 11) ~ '" '- o UlUl "'c Eo :J-- (50 > '" Ul '- '- :J '" o~ ~..- x'" 0-" ",- a.._ o :::;: a..c .........;: :::;:0 <(~ w b z ~~ o z N I <.0 UHf) ~ .....a::: ~ ::!::J z :JO W ...J::C 0 o >~ <l. Q) oLS g !... I::: 0.. ~ :J ~::!::5 0') I-~ a e_ -::!: W u.. w< ~ ~ ::c 0.. o ..... -, ~ 0.. ::c I- 3: o L... ~ l- e z :J o a::: C) :::.:: o ~ v ~ '" ::::- :z ~ .... "" ' .... 0. ~ o-""V'I ~ u......:z c; ~;:~ "- _~c:: l:') -J....I~ ; ~ '" 7.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA For the pUIpOSes of this analysis, a traffic impact was considered significant if the addition of proj ect or other development projects traffic would result in a decrease in inteIsection LOS to below LOS D lINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) lLG Ref. 3.04-1403 lemecula Medical Center 12 . . . . 8.0 NEAR-TERM ANALYSIS 8.1 Near-Term Analysis 8.1.1 Intersections Table 8-1 shows a SUIDDlmy of the existing operations at the key inteIsections in the plOject mea. This table shows that the majority of the intersections me calculated to currently operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following three intersections which are calculated to currently operate at LOS F. >- SR 79 / 1-15 Southbound Ramps (AM peak hour); and >- SR 79 / 1-15 Northbound Ramps (AM and PM peak hours). 8.1.2 Roadway Links Table 8-2 shows that alllOadway links in the project mea me currently operating at under capacity during the analyzed peak hour. 8.2 Background Traffic without Project Phase I Operations 8.2.1 Intersections Table 8-1 shows a summmy of the background traffic without phase I operations at the key inteIsections in the plOject mea. This table shows that the majority of the inteIsections me calculated . to opeIate at LOS E or F with the addition of traffic fiom the 17 other SUIlOunding developments.. 8.2.2 Roadway Links Table 8-2 shows that the majority of the roadway links in the plOject m.ea me calculated to continue to operate at under capacity with the exception of the following two lOadway links which m.e calculated to operate OVeI capacity. >- SR 79: west of Pal a Road; and >- SR 79: west ofMmgarita Road. 8.3 Background Traffic with Project Phase I Operations 8.3.1 lntersections Table 8-1 shows a summmy of the background traffic with phase I operations at the key intersections in the plOject mea. This table shows that the majority of the intersections me calculated to continue to operate at LOS E or F. It should be noted that the signalized inteIsection of SR 79/PlOject Driveway/Country Glen Way (east access point) is calculated to opeIate at LOS B conditions for both the AM and PM peak hoUls with the asswned lane geometries discussed in the "findings and recommendations" section of this report . 13 ) U.G Ref. 3--04-1403 I emecula Medical Center ltNSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers 8.3.2 Roadway Links . Table 8-2 shows that the majority of the roadway links in the project mea me calculated to continue to operate at under capacity with the addition of phase I project traffic with the exception of the following two lOadway links which m.e calculated to continue to opemte over capacity ~ SR 79: west of Pal a Road; and ~ SR 79: west ofMargmita Road. As shown in Table 8-2, with the exception of two roadway segments, all roadway segments within the project mea me p10jected to opemte under the maximum two-way volume at LOS D. However, it should be noted that all study mea intersections have been mitigated to LOS D.. 8.4 Background Traffic with Phase I with Improvements The key study mea intersections were reanalyzed with lane configm.ation improvements as outlined in the Apis Plaza traffic study. 8.4.1 Intersections Table 8-1 shows a summmy of the background traffic with phase I with improvements at the key intersections in the project m.ea. This table shows that with the improvements, all key intersections m.e calculated to operate at LOS D or better dwing both the AM and PM peak hows . 8.4.2 Roadway Links Table 8-2 shows that the majority of the roadway links in the project mea me calculated to continue to operate at under. capacity with the following two exceptions. ~ SR 79: west of Pal a Road; and ~ SR 79: west ofMmgmita Road. 14 ) lLG Ref. 3-04-1403 I emecula Medical Center . UNseon,LAW & GREENSPAN. engineers . . . U) z o ~ w .. o z o ;:: - " J., ~ ~ ~ w 11 :c .. I- " W .., o '" .. " ii::c U) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~... . ~-z U) '3 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 ;:0 ... z z z z z Z ~-j:: @ cwo :: zCf.lw w ::>~"' > ~a.ffi 0 ~ C)II- g: " " ~ ~ '" .. N .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N '" m .. ~ ~ ~!::~ ~ N 0; ci ci <D .,; .,; ;;; <D " 0; ,; 0;: - w " " N ~ N " N Z Z Z z " on ~ ~ al 0 0 ii: U) ~ '3 u. u. u. u. 0 w 0 u. <( <( '" '" '" 0 W U. 0 0 0 0 ~- ...l:J O~ ;;;.. 0:>: "'I:: ;;1;: ~ '" '" '" '" '" 0 ~ .. 0 '" ~ ci d d d .. " d m '" N N '" d ~ '" '" '" '" ~ Ii! :; '" .; " ci ~ ~ ~ .; '" " 0; .,; d w ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ .. ^ '" ~ N ~ '" 0 0 ~W U) w w w w '3 u. u. u. u. " w 0 ~ <( <( Z Z z Z 0 u. 00 0 " ...~ 0 0 0 0 0.. z... ::>::> 00 "':>: ~ 0 '" '" '" .. '" W W '" N .. ~ ~~ d d d d ~ '" d .. ~ W W .. ci - '" '" '" '" ,; .,; d '" z Z z z N '" d .,; ~ 0; ~;: W ^ ^ ^ ^ N ~ .. ^ .; " 0 0 0 0 ~ ^ ~ ~ N 0 - " ",W '3 u. 0 u. ~ '" " '" 0 <( <( '" '" '" 0 0 0 '" " " 0 Z~ [;if ~~ ~ '" '" .. ~ '" '" N '" ~ " m ~ d - - g '" '" .. N ~ '" ;;: ~ N d <D N ;i ,..; .; N ,; .; ~ ~ :i ;i ~ <D N gj w '" m N " ~ N 0 ^ ^ 'In W w w W 0 U. 0 U. ~. '" " '" 0 <( <( Z Z Z Z " " '" 0 0 0 .... " 0 0 0 '" Z ;:: "' ~ .~ '" d '" '" m .. " .. ~ " " W W W W .. ~ N ~ '" ~ ~ ,; <D .,; ~ N ;i :i .; N z z z z 0; .,; ~ " N gj w .. .. '" N " 0 0 " ~ " ~ N 0 ^ ~'5 " " ~ " ~ " ~ " ~ " ~ " " " " " ~ " :i " o.!E <( .. o. o. o. .. o. <( .. <( 0- o. o. .... Ow ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <I " ~ .... ~ ~ <( ~ ~ ~ "'o. z z U) 1-,. e> e> e> e> '" ~ e> e> e> al- e> u; u; u; u; u; u; u; u; u; " > ~ 1il ;: 0 c '" ~ m " >. 'E "" m "' ~ '" u z 1l. 0 'E 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 E D- o 0 > " 1il ~ E ~ 1j . ~ c " 0 ~ '" '" 0 >. '" " -g ~ >. " m ~ " U) u 0 ~ 0 ~ '" 0 c '" , ~ .. " e' 0 m .. W 0 0 m OJ I- D D ~ m .~ .. o. .3 ;;; ~ ~ u; 11 0 Ii - ~ u '5 " 0 ~ u ~ 0; - 0 0 N '" u <l . 'E u "' z . " m 0 ~ " m '" ~ 0- m m 5 '" u 0 . .. ;( ii: -ll ~ '5 '" .... o. '" -'! ;;; - - ;;; - " - ;;; "iij m '" '" m 0 m ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ .. ~ ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" m '" '" 0 U) "' " '" "' '" 0 '" "' " .. o .... o :I: ~ ~ :ii i!: z .. " 0 '" .... .. O<(a)oo W II. .... 00000... ~ '5g::;i~:8gg w WV;;;; A o Og~~~:3 l! i H ~o ~- vo ," rj&;i ~:ag r" E~l o ~ 5 o:'!kl .s ~ o~ lillllit"rl o:'Ce.!l ~5iC).!! ~ '5~ g~ ~ 6!1~ ::.; ~~~Y &.l!: g <::w Q. .gil mi~.~ ~~ ;;~;;;:) ~~ ~;~i 05 .."goo ~o i:!!~g .. . ~ ~1-1! ~ll i.~~: ~~gZ~~- 'Q"'''013'''~ i~81i~1 Uj~8~:;I~~~ ~< ~ 6 ~ ~ c . ~":N('iV:ri~~ '" ;; >- ~ '" z ::l >- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 0 ~ 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" 0: '" '" 0 J: W W W W W W w iL '" c w w 0 0 0 C C C ~ w z fj > z z z z z z i:!;;; '" => 0 => => => => => => 1-'" i!: c~ S"- OJ: 0:1- f;);: w .. w ~ '" ;:\ '" .. ;:\ !i ~ '" '" '" N '" g '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ .. .. .. .. ,.: ..; ..; .. .. N '" '" '" N '" '" N C ~ 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 :I: W W W W W W W W w iL_ "' 0 > > 0 0 0 c 0 c ~~ w z 0 0 z z z z z z '" => => => => => => => 1-< i!: oil' zl- =>=> 00 ffil' "'- ~ .. '" ~ <Ii '" '" .. '" 03: ~ '" '" N .. '" '" ;Ii 0 ~ '" '" ~ n '" '" '" > ",' ..; .. :!f .., .., !;i ~ " '" '" W '" '" '" 0 ~ 0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" :I: W W W W W W W w W '" C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z '" => => => => => => => => => :I: " I- z ;:: '" X w ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 ~ ~ .. '" '" '" .. ~ > :" ,..; .; " .. i .. N ,.. '" '" '" E , . EE )(-5_ '" 0 '" ~>p '" 0 '" 1'Si';'CI) '" '" '" ;;i~g ..; .. ..; gb ~ '" .. E. "'I- ~ ",. . < E , , oCCSQ. '" '" '" '" '" '" o ~ >.. '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ 'S ~.~ ~ '" '" N ~ ~ " ::i .. ::i " g ~:E 3:-, '" '" '" ] ~ 0: l- n n . 0 . '" '" 0 '" Z . . n ::; n '" . '" '" . >- 0 . Ii ~ '" "' ;; i;- n n n . >. 0 ~ " . 0 0 " '" ~ '" " 'E '" -1' '" " '" '" '" '" " 'E t- o ~ '" ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 " <i: '" <i: <i: '" .. . " " u "- " "- " '" '" 0 '" ~ '" ;; '" '" .. .. 0 .. . .. 'E .. .. '" .. .. .. '" . " ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ .. ~ . . , n " " " " 0: . ~ . .. g . 0 , 0 0 '" 3: w "- 0: '" '" Z '" . . w :l :I: "- .... o w ~ "- ~ i ~ ~ ~ I 0: ~ !u j! 1:. .~ "'. w. 5'" z...: . . 9.0 PROJECT ACCESS DISCUSSION AB shown in Figure 2-1, the project proposes the following three access points: )> One to SR 79 opposite Country Glen Way at a signalized location; )> One to SR 79 via a right turn in/right rum out only driveway; and )> One to De POItola Road to Margmita Road.. Reciprocal access to the property to the west is also proposed. The main project driveway is well throated into the site. The west project driveway on SR 79 should be limited to light turns. The access point to De POItola Road will be unsignalized and provide full access.. Based on the fOlecasted project uaffic volumes and the desire to maximize traffic signal green time on SR 79, the following lane configurations are recommended at the main signalized project access point: )> Westbound: I right turn lane 3 thru lanes I left turn lane . )> Eastbound: 2 left turn lanes 2 thru lanes I shared thrulright lane )> N01thbound: I left turn lane I shared thrulright lane )> Southbound: 2 left turn lanes I shared thrullight lane (20 reet wide) . UNSCOTT LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) lLG Ref: 3-04-1403 ] emecula Medical Center 17 10.0 EXISTING WITH PROJECT PHASE I ANALYSIS An analysis was conducted for the existing with project phase I scenalio.. This analysis was conducted to detemune if any direct impacts al.e calculated as a result of the project.. AI; seen on Table 8-1, the majority of the intersections within the study alea are calculated to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak homs.. The following intersections ale calculated to continue to operate at LOS F with or without the addition ofproject traffic. ~ SR 79 / I-IS Southbound Ramps (AM peak hour); ~ SR 79 / I-IS Northbound Ramps (AM and PM peak homs); and Based on the significance criteria, no direct project related impacts al.e calculated. liNSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN. engineers ) IW Ref. 3.04.1403 lemecula Medical Center 18 . . . . 11.0 TOTAL PROJECT ANALYSIS As previously detailed in section two of this report, the total project is proposing to consist of a 320- bed hospital with approximately 140,000 sfofmedical office space. 11.1 Trip Generation Summary Trip gene:ration estimates for the total project of the proposed development were calculated using Institute of Transportation Enginee:rs (lTE) rates (7th Ed.) and the SANDAG "Brief Guide fOl Vehicular Trip Rates". Project trips were calculated using the SANDAG daily trip rates for Hospital (200 / Bed) and the ITE Trip Rates for the Medical Office Building (36.13/ 1 ksf) portion of the project. Table 11-1 shows that the total project is calculated to generate a total of 11,458 ADT with 637 inbOlmd / 228 outbOlmd trips dUling the AM peak hour and 3.34 inbound / 595 outbound trips dUling the PM peak hour. TABLE 11-1 PHASE IT TRIP GENERATION . Daily AM PM Land Use Size Trip Ends Peak Hour Trips PeakHourT.ips !late ADf %of In:Out Volume %of In,Out Volume ADT Split In Out ADT Split In Out Hospital 320 Beds 20.0/Bed' 6,400 8% 70,30 358 154 lOO/., 40,60 256 384 Medical Office 140,000 sf 36.131ksf' 5,058 7% 79:21 279 74 10% 27:73 78 211 Totals: - II ,458 - - 637 228 - - 334 595 FootmJfe3: a Source: SANDAG .BricfGuide of Vehicular I raffic Generation Rates', April 2002 b IlE Trip Generation Rates (7'" Ed ) 11.2 Trip Distribution/Assignment Total project traffic was dimibuted and assigned to the street system based on the same distribution (see Fignre 5-1) and access assumptions as the Project Phase I tr.affic.. Figure 11-1 depicts the Total Project AM and PM peak hoUl traffic volumes. Figur.e 11-2 depicts the Background Traffic with Total Project AM and PM peak hoUl traffic volumes. . UNscorr,LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) lLG Ref. 3-04-1403 I ernecula Medical Center 19 ~ ~~ ffi ::E:) .1- ~ 30 u OX ~ ~~ ~ [La. W L... ::E ~5: ~ ,u b~ ~ IJ.J W ..., I- o ~ a. .... ~~ o z I .. ~ ~ '" -;. " (..p. ---:::;;I>f~ \ \lU"'$GI' I'll !p/~'l"""" ;,\f~ ~~ -~ :;.- 'j . 66/'/.'&1> -t., ::0 '. 51 \5 l;'l 5~/'&\' !".. 1, ~~ "" "?~ 0; \S/60"""'\ \ <; .. . .~- Q) L :J 0) .- u... $tl>GI'I'll ~I'-;?P' ~. :% o .,. ~ ~ o 0l0l Q)c Eo .2+:; 00 > g: ...... ::lQ) OC: .<:::'- .:LoQ) 0'<::: Q).... Il....... o ::E Il...c '-~ ::Eo <(-:;j ..",=, . (""" . ~~ O\~ I"~ ..-;\ -r':It~g 5lP'-'" ~'!dl . ~~- ':GfHffi8. ..~'" :;~:i ~~ a g: -.J ~ ~ c....~n'" .,~,o,ltS . w b z -~ ~~ ,..... ~~ j\.. '-otM t ~ "'- ~ II) - '" ~ c:i 1;: I ,.., o ... 9 -' z ~ .... .. ~ .... ... ~ 8 ~ ~ : ~3=~ -- _ ~ cz:: Cl ....J...J~ ; . ~'11'1' N I (J) (I) II:: IJJO::: ~ ~::> z ::> 0 lJJ ~ 5:1: u >~ 5 ()~ 0 to. ~ ~~ ~ I- a. ::l .........u t>~ ~ IJJ ~ J o 0:: a. -' ~ o I- ,.~ ,,-fA o z '" ~ '" '" . ~~r;. _'f!....S ,,--\Q\/~ f.$~ ,......,J.'~111'.' ~ r- (f>\9 )\'-- \l~~G~ v> fI'l,,,,J ;\f~ ~QI').~ ~1.~ ~y.1 ~t,D~ ~~~ ~ Q) ~ ::J 0> .- lL.. \l~ Sl~G~ v> ~ o f:l en E ~ 2+: o u >~ L..L.. :J ., 0<: .,C'.- .Yo" o..c .,+' o..+' o ::;;c 0..;. ........0 ::;;..c <en I W b z ~e;,<:;' ,~9'. 0":=$ "- ;ilf\'J.rP <$)":- .....( ;,...,\~ . )\'""~ .. fI'l ~J ..,v~ ..B6~f\~""'" ~~~ ",FP' ~~~ '&~~ ~~ -;:~~ c;.~"" ~~ :.~ -~ ~~ -'['. )\ --,'I' :. (."J ",\ . roe \~~ "'~ ';:.~f'&\""'" ~e.. ~~ ~~ ~ ' -- -~ "'~ )\ ~ 3= () i:L ~ c z ::> o 0::: Cl ~ () ~ :jA:~~ ,.....;.. t;~ ~fJl o g: --=->~ p~ ~.;&iSS1o~$S \ . ~ ~ -;. ,'OJ~""'" . ...-.' ...oil ~ -o.di ~ ~ "- ;).ry. \'"' ( ,10-- ....\( \/0....... o%.~ -;;~~ ~ Q~ ~~ ~~ ~;;. l'j1.l '--SOL ,....... ...= I\,. ,6rsl/,"L~t Ir ~~ ;t~ ~N :;r~ ~~ ~ Q~cv ....r.; ~:?:'- q' '7 R;:;'~ . ..II'!/~ 6tJ.ro/~ ~ ~;:;<.('l-.A '<)"' V !~-~ ~:'<') J'~~ ~~ IC) ~ z ~ .... << ~ .... "- ~ o V> ~ u~z: =:: ~:;~ '- -<~ ~ -l....J~ ;. ... o "- '" "- !ll~~1S " . G:i n: 11.3 Background Traffic with Total Project Operations . 11.3.1 Intersections Table 11-2 shows that with the addition of the total project, the majority of the intersections are calculated to operate at LOS E or F. However; under the background traffic with total project with improvements scenario, all intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better. operations for both the AM and PM peak hOIlI1l. It should be noted that the signalized intersection of SR 79/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way (east access point) is calculated to operate at LOS C or better conditions for both the AM and PM peak hoUls. 11.3.2 Roadway Links Table 11-3 shows that the majority of the roadway links in the project area are calculated to operate at under capacity with the addition of project traffic with the exception of the following two roadway links which are calculated to operate over capacity. ~ SR 79: west of Pal a Road; and ~ SR 79: west of Margarita Road.. As shown in Table 10-3, with the exception of two roadway segments, alllOadway segments within the project area are projected to operate under. the maximum two-way volume at LOS D. However; it should be noted that all study area intersections have been mitigated to LOS D. . liNSCOTT,LAW & GREENSP~ engineers ) lLO Ref. 3.04.1403 I emecula Medical Center- . 20 . TABLE 11-2 TOTAL PROJECT CPHASE I & PHASE II) ~ INTERSECTION OPERATIONS BACKGROUNOTRAFAC BACKGROUND lRAFFIC BACKGROUND TRAFFIC WITH TOTAL PROJECT INTERSECTIONS CONTROL PEAK WITHOUT TOTAL PROJECT WITlI TOTAL PROJECT WTH INTERSECTION lYPE HOUR IMPROVEMENTS' DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS SR 79/1-15 Southbound Ramps AM >1000 F >1000 F 51.6 0 SIGNAL PM >1000 F >1000 F 53.6 0 SR 79/1-15 Northbound Ramps AM > 1000 F >1000 F 378 0 SIGNAL PM > 100.0 F > 1000 F 38. 0 SR 79/la paz Street SIGNAL AM 288 C 275 C 287 C PM 760 E 74. E 463 0 SR 79/ Pala Road SIGNAL AM 414 0 40.9 0 288 C PM >1000 F >1000 F 548 0 SR 79 J Avenlda De M"lSsiones SIGNAL4 AM 38 A 43 A NfA NlA PM 43 A 6.0 A NfA NfA SR 791 Project Driveway / Country Glen Wfr!! SIGNAL AM ONE ONE 12.1 8 NfA NlA PM ONE ONE 211 C NlA NlA De Portola Road / Project Driveway AM ONE ONE 141 8 NlA NlA lWSC PM ONE ONE 215 C NlA NlA SR 79/ Reclhawk ParkWaylMargarita Road SIGNAL AM 638 E 640 E 46.6 0 PM >1000 F >100.0 F 54.7 0 R 79 I Butterfield Stage Road SIGNAL AM 502 D 543 D 40.8 0 PM 35.8 0 40.0 0 40.1 0 Margarita Road I De Portola Road SIGNAL AM 24.1 C 265 C NfA NlA PM 293 C 304 C NlA NlA NOTE~: 1 Averagedelayexpressedlnsooondspervehide 2 LOS_SccAppendlxOforde!arthesholds. 3_0NE~Dcesnotexist 4 _ Assumed It) be slgrdzed since it i:J a condilicn of the Rancho Community Church Project 5_ lnIersedion IrnpIOVen'lenI. ant shoM'l on Figure 12 and are consJstenl vmh !hose recommended i11he -APlS PLAZA" Tr.Jlfic Slutfy (RK EngineerTIg Group. Oeccriler2003) N/A_NoIapp1JceblesineGnosigV!ic:anlmpactiscalculatcd SIGNAUZEO DELAY I LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY LOS 0.0 < 100 A 10.1 It) 200 B 20.11a 350 C 35.110 550 0 5$.110 80.0 E ,. 80.1 F . . TABLE 11-3 TOTAL PROJECT (PHASE f & PHASE II) ROADWAY LINK ANAL YSI8 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Riverside County Temecuta Maximum WITH TOTAL PROJECT ROADWAYUNK Maximum Tw<>-Way Volume Two-WayVolume1 LOS "0" LOS "0" VOL THRESHOLD SR79 West ofl-15 FWf 30,700 28,572 UNDER West of Pala Road 73,600 97.452 OVER West of Margarita Road 55,200 72,180 OVER West of Butterfield Stage Road 55,200 38,544 UNDER East of Butterfield Stage Road 55,200 24.432 UNDER Pafa Road South of SR-79 66,600 54,708 UNDER Redhawk Parkway South of SR 79 30,700 29,136 UNDER Butterfield 813ge Road North of SR-79 43,200 20,100 UNDER South of SR-79 30,700 21,876 UNDER . NOTES: 1. See Appendix E for Roadway link Analysis Threshofds ~ . 12.0 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures The pIOject (both Phase I and the Total Project) contIibutes to significant cumulative impacts at several intersections, as noted in Table 12-1 below. Roadway improvements that are necessary to meet Level of Service standards at the study area intersections with the addition of both project and background traffic ar.e also shown in Table 12-1. The project's (phase I and Total Project) percentage contribution to the total tIaffic at these intersections is discussed later in this report These mitigation measures are graphically summarized on Figure 12-1. . . TABLE 12-1 REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES Intersection Reqnired Improvements SR 7911-15 Southbound Ramps Additional SB left turn lane SR 79/I-15 NOIthbound Ramps Additional EB thIu lane pIns convert WE right lane to free right turn SR 79/ La paz Street Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and one shared tbru/Iight lane SR 79 / Pala Road Additional NB left turn lane plus EB and NB free tight twn lanes Signalize and ptovide dual EB left turn lanes and dual SB left turn lanes SR 79/ West Project DIW .CounlIy Glen Way with a shated thtuIright turn lane Provide a dedicated right turn lane for WE Approach. SR 79/ Redhawk Parkway I Margarita Road Provide southhound and eastbound right twn traffic signal overlaps. Note: Ibese mitigation measures are consistent with those outlined in the "Apis Plaza" Traffic Study (RK Engineering Group, December 2003) LINSCOTT, lAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) ltG Ref.3-04-1403 1 emecula Medical Center 23 ll~ $I,Gtl \<ll '-- ~ ~'-.." ~p;@E ) \ en 1l"'it,Gtl \<ll . .J :"V'\~ ::::; 0 .... \io &.~.:~~ . .)G... . ,<"';;. t;~ ~&l o Ii: . ."..' ~ ~ If"" '7 S~ jitIlll<S'l"1'I' 15 1 ~ 'l co;j,lll'~ G~ \ll-'; utl '~10,if.S ~~ T- fa I ~ 0:: N ::> . 0 en z T- L5 -' ::::!: (5 Z CJ Q) l<J 0 ::0 !... ~ :5 :J C) ::l 0> I- <.> l<J ::::!: ::0 e_ ~ l..L. Cl IJJ en 0 a. 0 0:: a. " '" '- ':; <:r a.'" o ..... c: L: CI) _ 5 ~ Q) 01-0 c c 0 0'1..... c-~ Ui..c:L.-O .Q'~ grn .2 a::: .Q c ~ Q)~~"- o CD (11"0 L. L.. -- .U Q) 1--1.1..0::4::0 ~ II I f ~@!iI~, ~ l&..C:::: 10 . ... .z g: :;,. z: . .... <( , .... ~ . 8 oal ~ ~ VI ~ LLJ - :z .-. w tn :::i.:5~ ~ . - ;;; '" . 12.2 Circulation Recommendations . . L On-Site Circulation AF, shown in Figme 2-1, the project proposes access to SR 79 opposite Country Glen Way at a signalized location, to SR 79 via a right tmn only driveway, and to De Portola Road. Reciprocal access to the property to the west is also proposed. Based on the forecasted project tIaffic volumes and the desir.e to maximize traffic signal green time on SR 79, the following lane configmation is recommended at the main project access point. The intersection should be signalized. ~ Westbound: I right tmn lane 3 thru lanes I left tmn lane ~ Eastbound: 2 left tmn lanes 2 thru lanes I shared tluu/right lane ~ Northbound: I left tmn lane I shared tluu/right lane ~ Southbound: 2 left tmn lanes I shared tluu/right lane (20 feet wide) 2. Alea Wide and Fair Share Anal~ The project contIibutes to significant cumulative impacts at several intersections as outlined in Table 12-1. In ordei- to mitigate the project's portion of the cumulative impacts at these locations, the project should contribute a fair share towards the futme improvements at these locations, which are also listed in Table 12-1. Table 12-2 shows the Phase I project's share of the total PM .peak hour traffic. The project's contributions should not exceed the percentages shown in Table 12-2 until the project development exceeds the assumed Phase I development. Table 12-3. shows the total project's share of the total PM peak hom traffic. liNSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPN>I, engineelS ) riG Ref: 3-04-1403 Iemecula Medical Center 24 TABLE 12-2 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTIONS PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT PHASE I OPENING YEAR PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT % INTERSECTION t SEGMENT EXISTING WITH PROJECT PHASE I NEW TRAFFIC 1 OF NEW PHASE I TRAFAC TRAFFIC SR 79 t ~15 Southbound Ramps 3,341 5,125 75 1,784 4.2% SR 79/1-15 Nortl1bound Ramps 5.006 7,866 126 2,860 4_4% SR 791 La paz Street 5,170 8,351 126 3,181 40% SR 79/ Pala Road 5,463 9,161 189 3,698 5.1% SR 79/ Redhawk Parkway 5,593 8,562 251 2,969 84% SR 79/ Butterfield Stage Road 2,448 4,253 145 1,805 8.0% NOTES: 1 Total new traffic Irdudes a 2% pel' year growth factof'. other developmenl project traffic,. and proposed project trafifc . . . . TABLE 12.3 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTIONS PM PEAK HOUR TOTAL PROJECT (PHASE I & PHASE II) OPENING YEAR TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT % INTERSECllON 1 SEGMENT EXISTING WITH PROJECT PROJECT NEW TRAFFIC' OF NEW TRAFFIC TRAFAC SR 79/1-15 Soulhbound Ramps 3,341 5,187 137 1,848 74% SR 791 ~ 15 Northbound Ramps 5,006 7,969 229 2,963 7.7% SR 79/La PazStreel 5,170 8,454 229 3,284 70% SR 791 Pala Road 6,463 9,316 344 3,853 8.9% SR 791 Redhawk Parkway 5,593 8,770 459 3,177 144% SR 79/ Butterfield Stage Road 2,448 4,374 264 1,926 13.7% . NOTES: 1. Total newlrafflCincludes 82% per year growth factor. other developmenlprqecl trafOO, Wid proposed project trafifc . ill summmy, the project should implement the following measures to mitigate project impacts to . below a level of significance. )- Pay Rive1side County TranspOItation UnifOIm Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the SR 79 intClsections at 1-15, La Paz Road, and PaIa Road. )- Contribute a fail shme towards the provision of second eastbound and westbound left-tmn lanes on SR 79 at Redhawk Pmkway/Mmgmita Road as planned by the City of Temecula )- Provide a direct project access point to De Portola Road. )- Provide the lane configuration at the new project driveway on SR 79 as outlined previously in Section 12.2 . LINSCOTT., LAw & GREENSPAN engineers ) lLG Ref. 3.04-1403 I emecula Medical Center . 27 . e. ; . . ApPENDIX A MANUAL PEAK HOUR AND ADT TRAFFIC VOLUME SHEETS IJNSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) lLG Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center N.\I403\1tevsed-Rpt\R=risW.1bb\A.~.nCcI't:rI'a;=.doc .APR-01-2004 134: 12 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P..02 .. TraffIc Data SerYfce Southwest I WUttler Clear & Dry 9773 Meine Avenue Study Hlmo: 84104010 , CO<,Inled by : B.Glenn Site Cox\l , 001040_ Lakestde, CA 92040 aoard . 01'2278 (619) 390-8495 fox (619) 390-8427 Stlrt o.tl: 03/231 Lgc:ation "15 SIS Ramp. & 5R-79 Pogl : 1 Group \ 11"5 S/8 Off Romp IS.-79 11-15 S/R an Rlmp ISR-79 ISout~bourd IIIe.tbo..... 1 HorthbotJnd IE.ot_ Stert I I I I Iln" l. Time I left Thru A:iaht Pldol L.f1: Tt\ru Riaht: Pedol Loft Thru RIght podol Ldt Thru RI.ht pedsf Totll 03/23/04 I 1 I I 071001 265 0 35 01 289 51 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 55 90 01 805 07.151 281 0 48 01 276 46 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 70 89 01 810 07:301 270 0 65 01 267 50 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 54 57 01 763 07:451 289 0 105 11 266 56 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 89 39 11 846 Houri 1125 0 253 1\ 1098 203 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 266 275 11 3224 I 1 t I 1 08,001 257 0 87 01 25t 47 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 97 4l> DI 1'85 OB,'51 279 0 71 01 241 54 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 107 44 01 796 080301. 252 0 53 01 212 52 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 104 55 O( 728 .OB,451 289 0 83 0' 205 53 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 eo 31 01 741 Houri .1077 0 294 01 909 206 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 388. t76 01 1050 I 1 I I I . T.ote lJ 2202 0 547 '1 2007 409 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 656 451 '1 6274 '~pt'. I 60.0 19.B '1 B3.0 16.9 '1 -I 59.2 40.7 -I K Int. I 35.0 B.7 -I 31.9 6.5 -I -I 10.4 7.1 -I Pft~k Hour An8lysiB By Entire lntersectlon f~r the period. 07!OO on 03/23/04 to 08:45 on.03/l3/04 Tim I 07,00 I 07:00 I 07:00 I 07:00 I i Vol. I 1125 0 253 '1 1098 203 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 266 zn '1 !" Pet. I 81.5 0.0 18.3 7.21 84.3 15.6 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 49.2 50.~ 0.11 ToUl I 1379 1 1301 I 0 I 5104 1 . High I 07,45 I 07,00 1 07,00 I 07:15 I i ". Vol. I 289 0 105 II 289 51 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 7D 59 01 , i Tota~ 1 395 I 540 I 0 I 159 I PQF I 0.872 I 0.956 I 0.000 I 0.855 I . APR-01-2004 04:12 PM TbsSW 619 390 8427 . ~ : , . l.Ieather Counted by ; SCfatd fI LDcation CleDr & Dry B.Gllnn 01-2278 1-15 SIB Romp. & SR.79 Traffic Data Service Southwett 9m Maine Avetl1le Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 f.. (6191 390-8427 P..03' Study Mame, 8;\040\0 Sit. Code , 00104010 Start Date: 03/23/C4 P.ge : 2 Group 1 \I.' IS SIB off Rmrp ISR-79 II-IS SIB On Ramp ISR-79 I SOI.othoound IWa.tbo''''d INorthbound I Eastbound Staft I I I I jln"'l. Time I left Thru RtQht Pods I Left Thru Rtaht Pads I Left Thru RiRht peds I Laft Thru Rtaht. ped&1 TO.fll I I I I I 1-15 Sill orr Ra.MP 1 11aS a:5a ~ It 137!1 SR-79 4:56 ..- Gl31"Z3/Ci14 of- all3 Cil7:UUa.M 97:4~a.M 268 --7 UlCillil 3324 3&94 -V 1liI98 27:5 W l' ""T J.393 1 SR-79 N 1373 ..(, 1373 1-J.:5 SIB On RaMP APR-01-2004 04:13 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P.04 Uaath.ef" coun.ed by : aoard , Lo.cation cl ear' Dry a.Olenn 01'2278 1.15 sla Ren". & SR-W Traffic Data Service southwest 9775 Maine AvemJe Lakeside, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fax (619) 390.8427 StIJdy "..... 8410401\ Sf'. Code . 00101011 St.rt Oa.e. 01/23/. Paga : , Group 1 11-15 SIB Off Romp ISR-W 11.15 SIB On Romp ISR'W I SQ1Jthbound I ~..tbourd I Northbound I e..,boIJnd Start I I 1 I Iintvl. Tfmt. I Left Thru . Riaht pedal Left Thru RiQht Pedal L.ft Thru Rhaht Pod., Left Thru Rtaht ped,1 fatal 03/23/04 I I 1 I 16,001 334 0 52 'I 138 85 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 110 51 01 771 16:151 301 0 51 01 120 7B 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 105 42 01 697 .16.301 313 0 45 01 112 86 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 114 55 01 '25 16:451 33' 0 43 11 126 95 0 II 0 0 0 01 0 148 48 01 793 Kouri 1279 0 '9' 21 496 344 0 II 0 0 0 01 0 4n 19(> 01 2986 1 I 1 I I 17'001 365 0 30 01 122 114 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 134 61 01 ~6 17:151 1\8 0 49 01 131 168 0 01 0 0 0 01 0 166 6'. 01 !\Il7 ., 11,301 3S'~ 0 36 01 114 151 0 01 0 0 D 01 0 143 24 01 327. 11<451 315 0 44 01 B7 175 0 Of 0 0 0 01 0 126 21 01 778 Kouri 1367 0 159 01 454 608 0 01 0 D 0 01 0 569 171 01 3328 I 1 I 1 I ,otol\ 2646 0 350 21 950 952 0 'I 0 0 0 01 0 1046 367 01 6314 ~ Apr. I 1l!l.2 11.6 -I 49.9 50.0 -\ -I .74.0 25.9 ., . ~ Int.. I 41.9 5.5 -I 15.0 15,0 -I -( 16.5 5.8 ., Peak Hour Analrsl. By Entire Inter.ectlon for tho porlod: 16.00 on 03123/04 to 17,45 on 03/23/04 TIme 1 16:45 I 16:45 I 16:45. I 16,45 I Val. I 1373 0 158 11 493 5Z1l 0 11 0 0 D 01 0 591 198 01 Pet. I 89.6 0.0 10.3 6.51 41102 51.6 000 9.71 0.0 0.0 D.O 0001 0.0 74.9 25.0 0001 ToUl I 1532 1 10%2 I 0 I 789 1 . High I 17,00 1 17:15 \17:'5 I 17:15 I Vol. I 365 0 30 01 131 168 0 01 0 0 D 01 0 166 6~ 01 foUl I 305 I 299 I 0 .1 Z31 1 PHF I 0.969 I 0.854 I 0.000 I 0.853 I . . e . APR-~1-2B04 e4:13 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P..8S \leather Courttedby : Board 11 LoCation Clear" Dry 8.Glem "'-2278 1-15 SIB RampS & SR-79' Traffic Oata servlco South~est 9m Maine Avenue La~es{d.f tit 92.040 (619) 390-8495 fo. (619) 390-8427 Study Nome: B~1Q4011 site Coda , 00184011 Stort 0.,., 031231~ Pall. : 2 Group 1 fl'15 SIB O'f Romp (SR-79 11.15 sIB on ROmp (SR-79 I Southbound lWestbound \Northbound (Eastbound Start I I .\ ( Ilnt'l. Time I Le-ft ThMJ RiQht Peds I -Le"t Th,.u Right .edol uft Thru Riaht POdof left Thru Rloht peds I To'al I I \ I I -jT-J.5 SI'B Off R.....p J. 1373 1~8 ~ 1532 SR-'l9 . 686 +- 1il31'2~/Q4 ~ :l1I8 U4:4 p,. 85:3Ii1p,", 59J. ~. J.475 <1343 2986 W 493 U8 ~ l' ~ 1964 SJI-79 N &91 -J, 691 1-15 SI'B On II".." APR-01-2ee4 84:1"4 PM TDSS.... 619 390 8427 P.06 Traffic Data Service SoUthwest Weather Claar" Dry 9m Maine Avenue studv "_, 841010020 Counted by , 8~aroon I M.Parish Lakeside, CA 92040 si.. Coda I 00'0I001O loard # 01-1424 & 01-2172 (619) 390-8495 fo~ (619) 390-8427 S..rt 0.'01 0312]1. Lccetior\ 1-'5 NIB Rampo & 8R-79 Po~ : 1 arwp I 11'15 NIB 00 Romp ISR-79 II -15 NIB. Off RBIlIP 18R-79 18""t~bo\md I Westbound INort~_ IEa..bound I1ntvl. Start 1 I I I ttme I Left Tilru RIClht. Peds 1 L.ft Thru R;Qht Ped.' left Thru RiClht .Pedsf Left thru RI",,' ~ed.1 Tctal OJ{23104 I I I I 07:001 0 0 0 01 0 259 27J 01 16 0 106 01 86 246 0 01 986 07"51 0 0 0 01 0 294 2B5 01 13 0 le3 01 84 296 Q 01 1075 07,JOI 0 0 0 01 0 355 385 01 30 0 t!2 01 B2 261 (, 01 1245 07,451 0 0 0 01 0 284 324 01 27 0 131 01 97 284 0 01 1 ill Kouri 0 0 0 01 0 1192 1267 01 06 0 472 01 349 1087 0 01 4453 , 1 1 I I I 08:001 0 0 0 01 0 232 242 01 21 0 110 01 93 i!lIl 0 01 979 0&:151 0 0 0 01 0 288 316 01 32 0 117 01 106 278 0 01 1137 00>30 I 0 0 0 01 0 269 240 01 2B 0 1'5 01 99 293 U 01 1044 08,451 0 0 0 01 0 236 317 01 38 0 97 01 89 260 0 01 1037 Kouri 0 0 0 01 0 1025 1115 01 1'9 0 439 01 387 1112 0 01 4197 I I I I I TOIBll 0 0 0 01 0 2217 2382 01 205 0 911 01 736 2199 0 01 81150 ~ Apr. I -I 48.2 51.7 -I 18.3 - 81.6 -I 25.0 74.9 ., ~ I"'. I -, 25.6 27.5 .1 2.3 10.5 -I 8.5 25.4 .1 Peak Kour Analvsts By En.tr. lnt.r...tlon lor Ihe Period: 07:00 on 0312JI04 to OBr45 on 03123104 Time I 07:30 I 07;30 1 07,30 1 07,30 I r VoL I 0 0 0 01 0 1159 1267 01 110 0 490. 01 378 1104 0 01 i i Pet. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 47.7 52.2 0.01 lB.3 0.0 81.6 0.01 25.5 74.4 0.0 0.01 . Total 1 0 I 2426 I 600 I 1482 I lfigh 1 07:-1 I 07130 I 07:30 I 08:15 1 Vol. I 0 0 0 01 0 355 385 01 .30 0 132 01 106 278 0 01 Tottll I 0 I 740 I 162 I 384 I PHF I 0."00 I 0.a19 I 0.925 I 0.964 I . .APR-01-2e04 e4:14 PM ~DSSW 619 390 8427 P_.B7 , . + . GrO\.l> I II -IS NIB On Romp ISR-79 II-IS NIB off R.-p 15R-79 ! s"'.tnbourld !w..tbo1Jnd .\NortnboUnd lu.tbotnl StG:l't I I I \ Iln,vl. llm& ,tt ru . n Peds h-ru Ri Peds ft Tn R" - peds laft Tn.... I I I \.Ieathitr co,,"ed by , Soard , lOCGtioh Clear" Dry 6.Gre~n & ".PDri~~ DI'I424.~ D1-2'72 1.15 NIB ..mp. ~ SR- 79 TrDffl~ Data Service ~outhwest 9m Mai.... -,venue IOk.,ide, CA 9Z040 (619) 390.8495 fax (619) 390-8427 St<ody N..... 8411)1.(I20 Sit. Code , 001ll-10al start p.,.: 03/23/1)1, pago t 2 1-1:1-~~ On RaMp 1645 t 1645 i . , SR-'79 1269 ~ lil3/23/114 -L 12(,'1 lil7:3~ 0e:1 a.t'II 378 ....1- 2751 f- 1159 45lil8 492" 1ilil4 -7 I ~ 1594 . SR-7'J N GIlIl , r 11lil 4911 1-15 NIB ore Il.....p APR--01-2004 04:1~ PM TDSSW 619 3913 8427 P..08 Traffic Data Service Southwest lJeather Cle.r & Dry 9773 MaiM Avenue Study Namo: 04104D2' Countad by : B.Greef1 & M.per'ish lakesicle, CA 92040 SIt. Cod. : 00104021 B""rd # : 0"1424 & QI-217Z (619) 390.8495 f.. (619) 390-8427 St.rt On,., 03/23/~ lot:ation '.15 NIB Ro"". & SR.79 Page : 1 GrQup 1 /1.13 ~/8 On RJlIIl> ISll'79 11.15 NI8 011 Ramp ISR-79 ISo"thbound !\leotbound INor'hbo"nd I En,bound start I I 1 I IlnEVl. Ii"" I \.eft Thru Rioht: pad,1 Len Thru. Riaht Pedal uft TbrlJ RiQht 'Pads I Left Thru Rial1t Peda I 1'otal 03/23/04 1 I I I 16:001 Q 0 0 01 0 162 369 01 51 0 187 01 27 391 0 01 1187 16"51 0 0 0 01 0 155 308 OJ 46 0 194 01 28 384 0 01 1115 16'301 0 0 0 01 0 161 323 0) 36 0 152 11 21 361 U 01 leSS 16,451 0 0 0 01 0 163 311 01 50 0 176 01 42 446 0 01 1188 NO"'I 0 0 u 01 0 641 1511 01 183 0 709 11 118 1582. 0 01 4545 I I I 1 I 17.001 0 0 0 01 0 156 281 01 100 0 288 01 40 426 0 01 1291 '7"51 0 0 0 01 0 197 199 01 81 0 275 01 .30 461 0 01 1243 ,'7.301 0 0 0 01 0 165 214 01 111 0 323 01 32 423 0 01 12611 17,451 0 0 0 of 0 179 210 Of 96 U ?56 01 23 440 0 01 1204 Ho"rl 0 0 0 01 0 697 904 01 38B 0 1142 01 125 1750 .0 01 5006 I I I I 1 Totoq 0 0 0 01 0 1338 2215 01 571 0 1851 '1 243 3332 0 01 9551 X Apr. I '1 37.6 62.5 '1 23.5 76.3 -I 6.7 93.2 -I I lln,_ I ., 14.0 25.1 '1 5.9 19.3 '1 2.5 34.8 .1 Peak Hour Analysi, By Entire Inters~tton for the Period: 16:00 an 03/23/04 ta 17;'5 on 03/23/04 Ti", I 17,00 I 17:00 I 17:00 I 17,00 I V~l. I 0 0 0 01 0 697 904 01 3B8 0 114Z 01 125 1750 0 01 .. Pc_t. I 0.0 0,0 0.0 O.o( 0.0 43,5 56.4 0.01 25.3 0.0 74.6 0.01 6.6 93.3 0.0 o.ol Tatal I 0 I 1601 I 1530 I lB75 I . HiSh l'kl , 17,00 I 17,30 I 17,15 1 Vol. I 0 0 0 01 0 156 281 01 ", 0 3~5 01 30 461 0 01 Toul I 0 I 437 I .434 I 491 I p~, I 0.000 I 0.915 I 0.B81 I 0.954 I . . - . APR-91-20B4 04:15 PM TDSSW 619 390. 8427 P..09 weather I Clear & Dry counted by, B.Green & ~.Pari.h Board 8 . 0\.\424' 01.2172 Location 1-\5 NIB Rempa & SR.79 Trafffc bate service Southw.st 9m lIIino Avenue Lek.alcle..CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 lax (619) 390~8427 Study K..." 04.,0402\ SIt. COde , 00104021 ltort Date. 03tn/04. peg"' 2 Group 1 I SN" 11-15 NIB off Ramp ISR-7I' IWestbound INorthbound I E..tboun~ I I 1 IlnM. I ht left u Rt P . I I I I Stirt nne P,'S NIB On Remp . I southbound I I L f 'Thru Ri ht 11-15 IofI"B On RaMP I 1112,} i l' 11129 SR-"q. 1118:1 E- B312 rCil4 1:- 9G14 05:0 P" ..1- 11:1:4 lPM 135 3,'G 51111' 4493 ~ 6'J? 1759 -7 l' ~ 28'J2 SJI-?9 N 1:130 ~ f 1142 388 1-1:1 tll'B oft !la-lOP APR-01-2004 04: 15 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 p..te Traffic Dati s@rvt~e southweSt \Jeetl1er C\eer & Dry 9773 Ma;ne Avenue Study Harne: 04104030 Co""td by : M.AdBms. l.akuide, CA 92040 SIt. Cede : 00104030 60ard " 01'2173 (619) 390-8495 tax (619) 390.8427 Start O.te: 03fZ3/. lotatton Lo P.. ad & 5R-79 p.ge I 1 "roup I ILe Pol Rood 15.-79 1 ~e Pe. Roed 151'79 ISo.thbound IW.stbound I Northbound les.tbDllnd ',Surt I I 1 I IInty\. Ti Left ThrtJ R It T 01 h ds Th 0' P L Th p s .t 03/23/04 I I 1 I 07:001 16 3 31 01 4 543 52 01 6 13 7 01 9 364 4 01 Ion 07"51 31 3 34 01 2 493 46 01 8 4 2 01 9 372 I 01 1005 07.301 Z6 3 60 01 2 549 35 01 13 1 6 01 11 356 4 01 '066 07:451 29 I 39 01 2 576 39 01 6 I 5 01 7 401 2 01 1108 .0'''1 102 10 164 D) 10 2161 172 01 33 19 20 0) 36 1493 11 01 4231 I 1 1 1 I 08:001 37 0 41 01 1 523 41 01 5 0 3 01 11 376 2 01 1040 08.,5\ 37 3 62 01 2 508 71 01 8 4 3 01 33 351 6 01 1094 08,301 40 I 58 01 2 495 31 01 7 I 7 01 15 380 I 01 1038 08:451 42 6 34 01 5 494 47 01 6 5 4 01 3 374 3 01 1023 HDvrl 156 10 195 01 10 2020 190 01 26 10 17 01 .62 1487 12 01 4195 I I I I 1 Totol/ 258 20 359 01 20 4181 362 . 01 59 29 37 01 98 2980 23 01 8426 x Apr, I 40.5 3.1 56.3 -I 0,4 91.6 7.9 -I 47,2 23.2 29.6 -I 3.1 96.0 0.7 '1 t Int. I 3.0 0.2 4.~ -I 0.2 49.6 4.2 -I 0.7 0.3 0.4 -I 1.1 35.3 0.2 -I P8~k Hour Anqly~is 8y Entire Intersection for the pertod1 07:00 on 03/23/04 to 08145 on 03/23/04 Time I 07<30 1 07,30 I 07,30 1 07.30 I Vol. I 129 7 202 01 7 2156 186 01 32 6 17 01 62 1490 14 01 Pet. I 38.1 2.0 59.7 0.01 0.2 91.7 7.9 0.01 58.1 10.9 30.9 0.01. 3.9 ~., 0.8 0.01 .. Total 1 338 I 2349 1 55 I 1566 :. HigH I 08"5 1 07:45 I 07.30 I 07,45 vol. I 37 3 62 01 2 576 39 01 13 1 6 01 1 401 2 01 Total I 102 I 617 I 20 I 410 I PK' I 0.82B I 0.951 I 0.687 I 0.954 I . 619 399 8427 P.11 ~PR~01-2e04 04:16 PM TDSSW - .~ . I ~ . \.leather CDUnted by ~ Board" Location Start Cllllllr & Dry K.Ada... D'.Z173 lo PO' Rd & SR-79 Traffic D~tll Service southwe9t 9m Me i", AvemJe LBkesideJ CA 92040 (619) 390-849' fax (619) 39D-B4Z7 Study ~, 04104030 SIte Code : 0010~030 surt Oo'e' 03/Z31~ Page ~ 2 araup 1 I L8 Paz. Road INDrthboUnd I I ISRoN I eo.tl>oun<l I Peds I ILa paz Road I SDu,hbound I ISR-N \We.tbound I I T ht RI t . L f lhrlJ left hru RI ht Lo t LA 1''''' RoAd 7 254 3Jll 1.29 t 4 t i 5911 "R-1!1 23!111 ..... U~f~3~:4 'I:... 196 n .4' lIa;1~"" r 21.56 -+ 3956 43118 3985. J.4'1I i ~ "I J.4 W 04- 1696 SR-79 N 89 -l- 1 i r 28 6 32 17 La P....:z Road APR-01-2aB4 04: 16 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P.12 Traffic Data Strvi~e Southwest \lea the,. Clear & Dry 9m M3tne Avenue Study W..... 04104031 counteO by : JIll. Adem1 Lakeside!. CA 92040 Slto Code , 0010403\ Boord . 01.2173 (619) 390'8495 fax (619) 390.8427 St.rt Dot.: D5/25/~ Locelion La Pez Rd & SR-79 pogO . I Group 1 (le PaZ Road 1&R-79 1 La paz Road ISR'79 IScJ.hbound 11I..tboYnd INorthboUrd \Uotbll\l1d StQrt I I I I Time: Le Thru RI h . Left T Ri ht Thru . ht - ft 05/23/04 I I 1 I 16.001 58 2 20 01 7 522 49 01 5 5 1 01 13 538 6 01 1228 16"5\ 4\ 5 .16 01 1 442 42 01 1 1 2 01 1S 51'S 1 21 1147 16:301 74 3 19 01 ., 485 46 01 8 o. 5 01 II 485 5 01 1142 16,451 62 , \4 01 7 465 64 01 2 2 5 01 19 518 6 01 1225 Kouri 235 11 69 o( 16 1914 201 01 16 8 " . 0\ 58 Z119 18 21 474l I I I I I 17:00\ 97 5 12 01 2 459 55 01 6 3 5 01 40 651 17 01 1352 \7,151 1>6 5 14 01 5 416 45 O( 2 3 3 21 35 718 13 01 1323 17:301 90 6 \2 01 1 355 48 01 4 5 9 21 43 666 9 01 1250 17.451 68 2 10 01 6 404 44 01 4 3 3 01 40 676 9 Of 1269 Houri 321 18 ..s 01 \2 1614 100 01 16 14 20 41 .158 2711 48 01 5114 1 I 1 I I I.toll 556 29 117 01 28 5528 391 01 52 22 55 41 216 4890 66 21 P916 ~ Apr. I 79.2 4.1 16.6 -I 0.7 89.3 9.P '1 34.4 23.6 37.6 4.31 4.1 94.5 1.2 -I " Int. I 5.' 0.2 1.1 -I 0.2 35.5 3.9 .1 0.3 0.2 0.3 '1 Z.1. 49.3 0.. -I peak Hcur Anelysl. 8y Entlr. Intersection for th. PeriOd' 16:00 on 03/23/04 to 17:45 on 03/23/04 Ti_ t 17:00 I 17:00 I \7.00 117.00 1 Vol.. I 321 18 48 01 12 ,.,4 190 01 I. 14 20 41 158 2711 48 01 Pet. I 82.9 4.6 12.4 0.01 0.6 as.8 10.4 0.01. 29.. 25.9 37.0 7.41 5.4 92.9 1.6 0.01 total I 387 1 1816 I 54 I 2917 I . High 1'7:00 I 17;00 1'7.30 I 17.t, I Vol. I 97 5 12 01 2 439 55 01 4 5 9 21 >> 71a 15 01 Total I 114 I 496 I 2D I 766 I PKF I 0.848 I 0.915 I 0.675 I 0.952 I . , APR-01-2004 04:17- PM TDSSW 6-19 390 8427 P.13 . . I . Weattler c",",od by : BOllrd II Locetfan CI..r & Dry " .Adams Dl'2173 le ~.% ad & SR~79 Traffic Data ServfQe Southwest 9773 Meine Avenue lak.sid., CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 f.. (619) 390-8427 study N....' 04104031 51 t. Code : 00104031 St.r' D.t.: 03/23/04 Page : 2 ll..p ',,1. Road .ISo"~_ Sur' ., Ti Left Thru Group 1 Is~.T9 II. POl Ro.d \SR-79 \Westbound \Nort~bound .\E.stbound \ I I (In,vI. Pod_ d. Th ~l P t s I 1 I I . La Pa.. Iloa.l. :r 18 321 31ia t. It t 749 tR-'l'q 1618 <E- DB/13/M 't. 19li1 ~ o : ~PM 1:111 "5: PI" ~ 1614 ~ 4595 5174 4868 2711 t -V 12 48 ~ ~ 91153 SR-?9 N 133 -V ~ t r7 78 14 J.6 all 4 La Paz Road F1iPR":"01-20B4 04: 17 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P.14 ., i , Trafftc Data Service Southwest ~atht!:t' CLoGr & Dry 9m Ka f ne AV6ru6 IWdy N_, 04104_ CO\lt\ted by : s.Mockler Lakesidtt, CA 92040 lIte Cede , 0010404 Board 'II 01.2279 (619) 390-8495 fa. (619) 390.8427 Start Oat.: 03/23/04 Lo~Bticn Palo od & 5.-79 Pog" 01 ~ . GrOllp 1 . ISR.79 IPala Rc.d Iso-19 I ije. tllaUnd I.orthllound Jeo.,bound St2lrt I I I llntrvl. lin'le I ll!ft Thl"lJ Ped.1 l~fr: Rtah't pt!:dsl Thru Riaht ped'lll Ta'tel 03/231041 I I I 07:001 43 343 01 .231 45 01 198 174 01 1034 07,'51 46 347 01 188 33 01 225 204 01 1043 07,301 47 364 01 205 40 01 210 201 01 1067 07:451 41 372 01 260 35 01 249 214 01 1171 Houri 177 1426 0) .884 153 01 882 193 01 4315 I I I I 08'001 36 342 01 188 25 01 257 168 01 1016 08:151 35 376 01 228 42 01 226 178 01 1085 08,301 26 305 01 167 37 01 268 194 01 997 08'451 31 332 01 236 32 01 247 188 01 1066 HOllr\ 128 1355 01 819 136 01 998 728 01 4164 I I I I TotaL! 305 2781 Q) 17113 289 01 1880 \521 01 8479 X Apr. I 9.8 90.1 '1 85.4 14.5 -I 55.2 44.7 -I ~ Int. I 3.5 32.1 -I 20.0 3.4 -I 22.1 17.9 '1 Pebk Hour AnalyaiG By Entir4 lnteraectfon for the Perfodl 07;00 on 03/23/04 to 08:45 an 03/23/04 Tlmo I 07:30 1 07.30 I 07.30 I Val. I 159 . 1454 01 881 142 01 9.42 761 01 . Pet. I 9.8 90.1 0.01 86.1 13.8 0.01 55.3 44.6 0.01 rotal I 1613 I 1023 I 1703 1 High I 07:45 I 07:45 I 07,45 1 VOt. I 'I 372 01 260 35 01 249 214 01 Totfll I 413 I 2.5 I 463 I PH' I 0.976 I 0.866 I 0.919 I . 619 399 8427 : APR;-01-2004 94:18 PM TDSSW . I . . Weather Co~ud by Board tI 1.000a-r.iCln Cle.. & Dry S.ttockler D1.2279 Pale Rd r. SA-7Q Traffic Data service southwest . 9ffl Me tne Avel'lJe Lakeside, tA 92040 (619) 390-8495 f.. (619) 390-8427 Group I \SR-79 IE..tbound I p.d&1 T~ru R;aht I surt Time IS..79 \... tbound I I Left Thru I IPIII Road IWorthbound I podol Left Rlllht I Ilntrvl_ Ped.f TotaL I SR-"/9 2335 ~ lil3/23/134 (- 1.454 1!1 l 313....... Ua:l:S... 943 -t 4lil38 4339 3697 ~ 1:19 761 ~ I -7 1004 SR-79 N 1943 .j, ~ r 93lil 142 BBI Pal... Ro..ol PoolS Study Hemo: 04'D4~0 Si to code : 001~040 start Dlt.' 03/Z3/04 p.ge : 2 . APR-01-Z004 04:19 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 . - . W.ath.r Counted by Board 1# locatlol"l Clea,. it Dry S.Moe~l.r DI-2279 pele Rd & SR-79 Traffic Data"servlce Southwest 9773 M.tne Aven.te lekeslde, tA 9204D (619) 390.8495 tax (619)390-8427 Start Time ISR-79 I Weotbound I I Left Thru I Group 1 ISR-79 IEestbound I Ped.f .ThMU RIAht I Iln,rvl. pedal Toul I IPolo Road IMorthbound I Peds I Left Rfaht I . SR-.... 1837 ~ 1l3/2~g4 ~ 999 liIS:1i1 .. 9:1:4 PM 1747 ~ 4'172 :$464 3319 -V- 2G1S 1188 W l' -? 2235 SR-'1'J N 3837 ,j, 1 P 13'J1 400 'J:$7 1 l'ala Road P.17 stUdy M....' 04104041 Sfte Code: 00104041 St.rt D.t.: 03/23/04 Pege : 2 APR-01-2094 04: 19 PM TDSSW 619 398 8427 P_18 Traffic Dat. Service Southwest "'.ether Clear" Dry 9773 Meine A."",. Study N....' 04101,_ .Counted by l IIt,Archibald Lakeside, CA 92040 Site Code , 00104 ao.rd . 01.1426 (619) 390-8495 fox (619) 390-8427 Seer, Dot.. 03/231 L.ocation :Avenidas d~ Missions & SR-79 Page 1 Group 1 IA\'enidas de Minions ISR-79 IAven;des de Misstons ISR'79 I S,'utnbour1d I W.stbound (Northbound .IEastbound Start I I I I Itntvl. Time L..ft Thrll Riaht SJedel L.ft Thru RiQhr- Peds I Left Thru Riaht peds I Left rhru Rlaht Peds! Total 03/23/04 1 I 1 I 07:001 0 0 0 01 0 405 I 01 10 0 0 01 0 218 4 01 638 07,'Sf 0 0 0 01 1 355 0 01 10 0 0 01 1 228 I 01 596 07:301 0 0 0 01 1 420 0 01 10 0 2 01 2 219 3 01 657 07:451 0 1 1 Or 0 397 O. 01 18 0 3 01 0 257 6 01 683 Houri 0 1 1 01 2 1577 1 01 48 0 5 01 3 9O!Z 14 DI ~74 I I 1 I I 08,DOI 0 0 0 01 I 385 0 01 9 0 0 01 1 263 8 01 667 08:151 0 0 0 01 1 4l!l 0 01 4 0 2 01 2 279 5 01 716 08,301 0 D 0 01 0 293 0 01 6 D 3 01 1 256 6 01 565 08,451 0 , 3 01 1 377 2 01 9 0 I 01 0 280 3. OJ 677 Houri D 1 3 01 3 1478 2 01 28 0 6 01 4 1078 22 01 2625 ! 1 I 1 I Taul ;. 0 2 4 01 5 3055 3 01 76 0 II 01 7 2000 36 01 51119 % Apr, 33.3 66.6 -I 0.1 119.7 -I 87.3 12.6 -) 0.3 97.8 1.7 -I ~ Int. : '1 5B.7 -I 1.4 0.2 -I 0.1 3B.4 0.6 -I Pe.~ Novr Analysis oy Entire Int.rsectlon 10r the PorI ad, 07,00 on 03/23/04 to 08:45 an 03/23/04 Time : 07.30 I 07,30 1 07,30 I 07,30 I Vol. 0 1 1 01 3 1625 0 01 41 0 7 01 5 1018 22 01 . Pet. 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.01 0.1 99.8 0.0 0.01 85.4 0.0 14.5 0.01 0.4 97.4 2.1 0.01 Toul 2 I 1628 I 4B I 1045 1 High ! C7'45 lOB,,, 1 07:45 I OB,15 I Vol. I 0 .1 01 1 423 0 01 18 0 3 01 2 279 5 01 loUl , 2 I 424 I 21 I 286 I ; PHF I 0.250 I 0.959 I D.571 I 0.913 I . APR-Bl-2aB4 04:20 PM TDSSW 619 3913 8427 P.19 Ueather Claar & Dry _ounted .by' M.Archib.ld .,d , ,D'.\426 oc8~fQn :A~entd.s de Mlsalons & 5R-79 Traffic Data service Southwest 9m Maine J\venue tak..,de, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 f.. (619) 390-8421 Study Name, 04104050 Site ~ , 00104050 Start D.t.: 03/23/04 Pili;. ::2 Group 1 IAvenldas do Mis.tons Isg-19 IAvenid.. de Mfo.l_ IS..19 I Southbound IUa.tbound I Northbound IE..tbo<md Stert I I I 1 pn"l. Tl... I Left Thru Alaht Pad. I Left Thru Rtaht Ped., left Tht'u RfA~t Pedal Left Tt.ru Rlaht Podol Total I I I I J . lit enlda.s: de ..15510n:5 1 :I . 1 ~, J, l' 7 ~R~79 1667 oE- 113/23/"4 f- 1,6:015 "~: 31l4lM 5 ..1- II : 1:1aM 2712 2723 2'!l3 ..v- 3 1MB -+ l' 22 ~ -7- 141211 SR-7' N ?4 .j, ~ f 41 2.6 ? IIIven1 clas dll Missions . APR-Bl-ze04 134:2121 PM TDSSW 619 399 8.427 P.20 Traffic Data Service Southwest Weather Cle.r & Dry 9773 IUt;''1e AvefJ.Il Study Nome: 04104051 Counted by ; ".ArchibaLd "~"eBfde, CA 92040 stte C~ : OQ'O~ Soardr 01.1426 (619) 390,8495 la. (619) 390.8427 Start Oote: 03/23 lot.Dtion :Avenida8 de M's&fons & S~-79 Pogo 1 Group 1 I"venidas ~ Hfuian5 18R-79 tAvenides de Mfssions I SA-i'9 I Southbou"" IW.atbound INorthbound I Eastbound !. Start I 1 I I Ilntv\, Time I left: Thru Rfnht P-I left: Thru R;ahc Pods I left Thl"'u Rhlht Podal left_ rhl"U RfCllht' Il'ed81 Total 03/23/04 I I I 1 16:001 0 0 1 01 0 343 0 01 5 0 2 01 1 425 10 01 787 16,151 0 0 1 01 0 266 0 OJ 1 0 0 01 , 403 lD DI 682 16,301 0 0 0 01 2 280 0 01 4 0 2 11 D 394 9 01 692 16145J 0 0 D 01 2 302 0 01 3 0 0 01 I 446 15 01 .769 Houri 0 0 2 01 4 1191 0 01 13 0 4 11 3 1668 44 01 2930 I I I f I 17:001 0 0 0 01 0 250 0 01 1 0 0 11 0 530 14 01 802 11.,51 0 0 0 01 0 260 0 01 4 O. 0 01 0 540 21 01 825 11:301 0 0 .0 01 2 243 0 01 6 0 1 01 0 5~ 17 01 792 17,451 0 0 0 01 1 240 0 of 6 0 2 01 0 517 16 Of 782 Houri .0 0 0 01 3 993 0 01 23 0 3 11 0 2110 68 DI 3201 i I 1 I I 1 i. 10Ul! 0 0 2 01 7 2184 0 01 36 0 7 21 3 3778 112 DI 6131 X Apr. 1 100.0 '1 0.3 99.6 '1 80.0 15.5 4.41 97.0 2.8 -I X Int. , '1 0,1 35.6 .1 0.5 0.1 '1 61.6 1.8 '1 Peak Hour Analy.l. 8y Ent!re lntor.o.t;on for the ..rlod; 16.00 on 03/23/04 to 17.45 on D3/23/04 Tire I 17'00 I 17.00 I 17,00 I 17.00 I Val. I 0 0 0 01 3 993 0 01 23 0 3 11 0 2110 68 01 Pct. I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.3 99.6 0.0 0.01 85,1 0.0 11.1 3.71 0.0 96.8 3.1 0.01 . Total I 0 I 996 I 27 I 2178 I Kf.h '.16:.1 117'1' I. 17,45 I 17,15 I Vol. I 0 0 0 01 0 260 0 01 6 0 2 0) 0 '40 21 01 Toul I 0 I 260 I 8 1 561 I '0' I 1).000 I 0.957 I 0.843 I 0_970 I . APR-01-2ae4 94:20 PM TDSSW 619 3913 8427 P.21 . I e . Weather .0000tod by : Boprd II Location ClaBr' & Dry M.Archiba\d DI-1426 IAvenidB& de "'eaions & SR~19 Traffic Data Service SouthweGt 9773 Maine Avenue Lakeside. CA 92040 (619) 390.8495 fax (619) 390-8427 $tudy Nome: 04104051 .stt. code I OD1040;1 sutt Oat., 03/23/04 Pege: 2 Gr'Cup 1 t~ienidD& de "Isc1ona \8R-79 IAv.nldll cia M;ss;ona 15'079 I Southbound (westbound I NorthbcllJrd \ea.tbound StaC"t I I I I IlntvL. Tifne I left Thru RI.ht pedol left Thru R1Q'ht Pods I Left: Thru Riaht Peds.' Left Thru Rlaht perla' foul I r \ I I R venldas. de-Missions ; SR-79 UI16 oE- !~ril=4. ~ 993 31UI ~ 3194 32111 31119 -II 3 68 'II I -T 21.13 SR 19 N 98 .. t 1 r 11 3 23 Missier" 1 A.....nI das de <'lPR-01-2004 04:21 PM TDSSW 619 390. 8427 P..22 Traffic Data Service Southwest \leethl!r Clear & Dry 9m Ne'n.. AVenue Study Name. 04104060 C_tld by , J.Gr.en & R.t.ylo' lakaside. CA 92040 Sit. COde . 00104060 Beud #I 01.142B & 01-1429 (619) 390.8495 fox (619) 390.B427 Stort Dete, 03/23/~ L.cx:ation Mar-gar \ t8 Rd & SR. 79 ~.ge. r 1 Gro~ 1 IHJrgnritn Road ISR'79 IRad Kawk Parkway ISR'79 IS>1Jthbound IWestbound IHort~boIJnd leeatbound Start I I 1 I "ntvl. fi~ I Left Thru RiClht p@da.1 L~ft Tht"lJ Riaht pedal left Thru Riaht podol Left Thru Rfaht Peds I TotaL 03/23/04 I I I I 01.001 13 89 33 'I 33 256 17 01 79 244 31 01 36 174 32 01 .103fl Dl"51 19 153 44 01 . 71 218 18 01 B6 102 18 01 58 169 44 01 lIillo 011301 21 131 48 01 62 219 .,2 01 125 98 29 01 48 131 57 21 9B3 07:451 28 121 44 01 71 173 37 11 125 109 43 01 47 207 30 31 IOJ9 Houri ill 494 169 'I 237 866 B4 11 415 553 121 01 189 6Dr 163 51 4060 I I 1 I I OB,OOI 19 100 40 11 83 253 IT 01 80 95 55 01 64 151 36 01 994 08,'51 22 83 53 01 77 242 19 01 127 110 27 31 63 IB9 43 01 1058 OB:301 26 94 35 01 55 182 36 01 87 88 28 01 77 182 44 01 934 OB:45 \ 51 161 54 01 56 203 44 01 144 145 59 'I 69 154 J~ 01 11llll ~ourl 110 43B lB2 11 271 8BO 116 01 438 43B 169 41 273. . 676 162 01 4164 I I 1 I I Totoll 199 932 351 21 508 1746 200 'I 853 991 290 41 462 1357 ns 51 8226 t Apr. I 13.4 62.8 23.6 0.11 20.6 71.1 8.1 -I 39.8 46.3 13.5 0.11 21.4 63.1 15.1 0.21. X Int. I 2.4 11.3 4,2 -, 6.1 21.2 2.4 -I 10.3 12.0 3.5 -I 5.6 16.4 3.9 ., Peak ~OUr AnD1Y81s By Entire Intersection for t~e Perfod; 01;00 on 03/23/04 to 08:45 on 03/23/04 11.. 1 08,00 I DalOD 1 oa:oo I 08.00 I I Vol. I "8 438 182 II 27, B8D 116 01 438 438. 169 41 273 676 162 01 Pet. I 15.9 59.2 24.6 D.ll 21.3 69.4 9.1 0.01 41.7 41.7 16,1 0.31 24.5 60.8 14.5 0.01 Total I 739 I 1267 I 1049 I 111' I . High I 08:45 I 08:DD I 08:45 I oa.30 I Vol. I 51 161 54 01 83 253 17 DI 144 145 59 '1 n 182 44 01 Total I 266 I 353 I 349 I 303 I PKF I 0.694 1 0.89T I 0.751 I 0..916 1 . APR~01-2004 04:21 PM TDSSW 619 3913 6427 . ~ I e weat~'r C...,tld by , BOlrd . I Looatlon Clear & pry l.G.een & R,Taylor 01-1428 &.01-1429 Margarit.8 Rd & SR-79 Trlffie Dat. Slrvice southwest 9m Mafne Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040 (619)390-8495 fa. (619) 390-8427 P_23 Study N..., 04104060 site Code , ~104O6O s.art Da.e, 03/23/04 pqe ; 2 Group I I"arg.rlt. Road ISR-79 IRed H.wk Parkway ISR-79 I Sout~bound 1~.ttboYnd IHo.tobot.M le...- Start I I I I It.tv!. Time , left lttru Rf-aht Pede I left Thru RfAht ped'l Uft Toru Rjoht ~.d.1 loft Thru Rlaht. Plelll total ! I I I I .1 l1a.>>Stal'l ta RQ~~ 438 821 182 118 ~. J, ~1' 1566 SR-'19 151ol11 ~ Uf~e:;4 ~ U.6 2'13 ..!/' f- B81i! ~ 2611 41" 322Cl 616 I ~ 311 162 ~ -+ 963 SR-79 N 19211 -It ~ i ~ 911 438 438 169 4 Reel. Hawk Pal'kwall APR-01'-2094 134:22 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P_24 Tr.fft. D... serv,.e Southwe.t Vto'ther clear & pry 9773 MBine Avenue Stud)! N....' 0410401>1 """,,'ed by , J.Green & ~.Tattor Lakeside, CA 92040 Site Code , 00104_ Board 11 DI-14la & P1-1429 (619) 390-8495 f.. (619) 390-8427 Stort Oo.e, 03/23 iocerlon MBrverlta ~d ~ 9~.19 P8gIJ ; , Group 1 IMergaritl ROlld 10.79 IRed Hawk Parkway 15R-79 I Southbound Il/eo.bound I Horthbound . leastbound Stort I I I I IlnM. limo I Left Thru Rleht ped.1 Left ThNl Ri~ht ped.' Left Thru RIehl Ped.' left Thru Ri.ht pedal lDut 03/23/04 I I 1 I 16:001 78 198 32 01 89 185 41 11 90 144 51 01 108 2118 B6 1\ 1392 16'151 55 145 Z8 01 92 174 59 01 72 142 48 01 119 284 Il8 21 1lB6 16.301 56 166 41 11 91 192 34 71 sa 129 48 01 109 Z70 5' 11 1287 16:451 88 '19& 31 01 9) 147 37 21 110 164 53 01 8] 2'/9 82 01 1365 Houri 277 703 13Z 11 365 .698 151 101 360 579 200 01 419 1121 310 4\ mo I I I I J 17,001 52 169 57 11 102 156 55 21 69 158 44 01 118 371 102 lJ 1403 17.151 81 195 32 01 104 154 55 01 83 144 44 01 114 300 91 01 U17 17.301 63 196 36 11 90 163 38 21 90 157 52 11 111 375 83 II 1459 17:45f 55 181 42 01 89 165 40 01 82 119 45 01 130 526 79 01 1353 Houri 251 741 147 21 385 638 148 41 524 558 185 11 473 1378 355 21 5592 I I I 1 I To.." 528 1444 2'/9 51 750 1336 299 141 684 1157 385 11 892 2499 665 61 10m ~ Apr. I 23.4 64.0 12.5 0,11 31.2 55.6 12.4 0.51 30.9 51.5 17.4 '1 21.9 61.5 16.3 0.11 lInt. 1 4.8 13.2 2.5 -I 6.8 12.2 2.7 0.11 6.2 10.4 3.5 '1 8.1 22.1i 6.0 -I .Pea~ Mov' An.t~iB By Ent;r6 tnter8ectiun for the Period: 16:00 on 03/23/04 to 17:45 on 03/23/04 Tide i 16:45 1 16,45 I 16:45 1.16.45 1 VoL I 284 756 136 21 389 620 145 61 352 603 19) 11 426 1331 358 al Pet. I 24.1 64.1 11.5 0.11 5'J.5 55.4 12.5 D.51 30.6 52.4 16.7 0.01 2D.l 62.8 16.9 9.4/ . Total I 1178 / 1160 I 1149 I 2117 High I 16.45 I 17:00 1 16,45 117100 1 Vol. I 88 196 31 01 102 156 55 21 110 164 53 01 118 317 102 11 Total I 315 I 295 I 327 I 598 I PH' I 0_934 I 0.983 I 0.878 I D.885 I . APR-01-2004, 04:22 PM TDSSW 619 3'90 8427 - . . ,. Weathor I .cOIJnudbll ; . Board , LOtllttQn Cloor & Ory J.Grell/l & R.Teylor 01-1428 & 01'1429 Margar;ta Rd & SR-79 Traffic Data Service Southwest 9713 Ma;-ne Avenue L.~e.;de, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fQX (619) 390-B4Z7 P..25 Study w_, ~104061 SIte Codo : 00104061 stort 00,0' 0"23/~ p.;e : 2 .Group I I"Gr;arhe Read 198.79 lallCl Hl!lIWk. Parkway 158'79 I Southbound IWestbound I NorthboUnd IEostboUnd Surt I I 1 I T'i L. t Thru Rt ht Pod. T r Left 1hru Rf l It T P I I I l. Ma...g....ita Road 2 7:16 1174 136 284 ~ -1 ~ l' 2352 I!:R_.,q .. U98 ~ 1i13'23'1iI4 -t. 145 ~ 1i14:451'M 426 1i15: 31i11'1O f- Galli ~ a3a:l 5694 2968 1331 t .v 389 3:18 ~ -+ J.8118 .2 SR-79 N 2652 .j, ~ i f l:11i13 693 352 193 1 Red Hawk Pa..kwa~ APR-01-2se4 134:23 PM TDSSW ~19 390 8427 P.26 Traffic Data Service Southweit weather , Cl.ar& Dry 9m Haino Avenue Study Name, 04100070 COllrIted by , ~,Thlnd Lake.ide, ~ 9~O40 .Slto Code : OOUll'~ Board , 01-1432 (6191 390'8495 f.. (6191 390-8427 Start Date: 03/23 Location : 8utter/iled Stg ~d & SR-79 Page : 1 Group I Isuttorflold stage Road ISR.79 IButtorfield Stago Rood ISR-79 I Southbound IWestbOllnd I Northbound 1 Eostbound . S.url: I 1 I I IlntvL Time . t left Thru Rtoht Podal Loft Thru Riaht Pods I left ThrU RIGht Pedsf Uft Thru Riaht Peds I foul 03/23/0It I 1 I I 07:001 8 29 39 01 6 110 19 01 47 64 9 01 44 6S 36 01 4n 07:151 9 37 37 01 12 103 14 01 45 40 4 01 37 74 32 01 '44 07:301 9 74 42 01 16 135 IS 01 32 46 20 01 38 68 i!6 01 511 07,451 6 48 37 01 44 144 14 01 42 69 11 II 53 71. 28 01 571 Houri 32 188 155 01 78 492 62 01 166 219 44 11 . 172 279 122 01 2010 I I 1 I 1 00:001 5 99 47 01 41 120 11 01 56 75 32 01 62 95 24 0\ 667 08:151 6 30 37 01 13 138 11 01 36 33 7 01 31 87 .26 0\ 455 08:301 6 44 32 01 22 119 '1 01 46 36 7 01 31 99 9 01 462 08:451 8 39 40 01 16 124 17 01 33 38 II II 29 100 22 01 4!8 ",'''I 25 212 . '56 01 92 SOl 50 01 171 182 57 11 153 381 81 01 2062 I 1 I 1 I fotol! 57 400 311 01 \70 993 112 01 337 401 101 21 325 660 203 DI 4012 "Apr. I 7.4 52.0 40.4 -I 13.3 n.8 8.7 -I .40.0 47.6 12.0 0.21 27.3 55,; 17.0 -, X Int. I 1.3 9.a 7.6 -I 4.1 24.3 2.7 -I 8.2 9.a 2.4 -I 7.9 16.2 4.9 '1 pe.k HOOI. Analysis By Entire Ihter.oction for the perIod: 07:00 on 03/23/OItto 08,45 on 03/23/04 n.e 1 07:30 I 07:30 I 07:30 I 07:30 I Vol. I 26 251 163 01 114 537 51 01 166 223 70 11 184 SZ4 101t 01 ! pet. I 5.9 57.0 37.0 0.01 16.2 76.4 7.~ 0.01 36.0 48.4 15.2 . 0.21 30.0 52.9 16.9 0.0! . Total t 44D I 70~ I 460 I 612 Hish I 00:00 I 07,45 1 08,00 I 08,00 Vel. I 5 99 47 01 44 144 14 01 56 75 32 01 62 95 24 01 Tota\ I 151 I 202 1 163 1 181 I '"F I 0.728 I 0.B68 I 0.705 I 0.845 I . APR-01-2004 04:23 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P.27 . . . We.lher counudby ; aoord _ I Location CLear & ~~y K.Thlnd u1-l432 aUltorfl~od Sl9 Rd & so-79 Traffic Dala Sarvica southwest 9m Maine Avenue Lekoslde. CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fa. (619) 390-0427 Stud\' N_. 04'04070 SIto COde : 00104070 Slart Dal.. 03f23l04 Poge I 2 Grollp 1. IButtorflold Stag. Rood 16R.79 lautterfield Staae ROod ISll-79 ISout.bound Iweotbol.ind INorthbound I eastbound Start I I I I 110M. 1l1h1 I L~ft Tnru Alaht peds I left Thru Riaht pedal . loft T'ru Riqht pedal (oft ThrLJ Rlaht pedsl Toul I I I I I Bu ~t....ri..ld s t"",, Road 251 459 163 2~ t ~ t a9a $>>-'>9 966 ~ S~fI~~4 'to- 51 184 ~ 1iI1I: :Ia.. +- 93'1' -4 1478 3314 1.1:t2 32" l' '" 114 l1a4 '" ~ 429 S:R-19 N 939 .J, ~ i r 469 333 166 711 1 Bu t....rield Staae ROad ~PR-01-2004 04:24 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 p..28 Traffic Data Servfce Southwest lIeothor I Cl.or & Dry 9773 Maine Aven.ae Stl.l<lY Mo.-I 04104071 COlJn,ed by : ~. Thlnd Lakeside, CA 92040 Slto code ; 00104~ Soard # 0\.1432 (619) 390'8495 fa. (619) 190.8427 atart 0.'0' 03/23 l,oca~\on Botterfield Stg Rd & SR-79 ?ogo : 1 Group 1 !Butterfield S~Bge Road taR''/9 !autterfleld &tOgo oood 180-'/9 1 Southbound IW..tbound I Northbound IEottboUnd IlnM~ Start I t 1 1 Tfme I Le1t ThrU Rfaht podol left: Thru Rlaht pedal left Thru RiGht peds! Left ThrlJ Rlaht Pedi' Tat.l 03/23/04 I I 1 I 16,001 13 56 30 01 21 111 16 01 29 52 21 01 77 138 31 01 Sq5 16.,51 u 58 33 01 12 90 15 01 33 51 17 01 73 160 31 0\ 595 16.301 II 47 42 01 14 75 15 01 27 40 16 01 80 162 33 2\ 564 16.451 15 62 36 01 21 99 15 21 3D 38 20 01 79 140 50 01 567 Houri 61 223 .141 01 68 375 61 21 119 181 74 01 509 600 125 21 2341 I 1 I 1 I 17.001 14 65 33 0\ 24 91 10 01 28 50 18 01 96 162 36 01 627 17.151 23 72 30 01 22 87 14 01 28 54 20 01 76 156 34 01 616 17.301 19 61 33 01 20 B2 9 1\ 37 54 20 01 86 155 32 01 609 17:451 21 68 24 01 l' 81 8 01 50 31 27 11 81 163 22 01 59S ltol,.ll"j 79 266 120 01 85 341 41 '1 143 189 85 1\ 339 636 124 01 2450 I I I I \ Toull 140 489 261 0\ 153 716 102 3\ .262 370 159 11 648 1236 249 21 4791 ~ Apr. ! 15.7 54.9 29.3 '1 15.7 73.5 10.4 0.31 33.0 46.7 20.0 0.11 30.3 57.8 11.6 '1 ~ Int. I 2.9 10.2 5.4 .\ 3.1 14.9 2.1 .1 5.4 7.7 3.3 .1 13.5 25.7 5.1 '1 ~eak Hour Analysi5 By Entire Intersection for the Period:" '6100 on 03/23/04 to '7:45 on 03/23/04 Ti/TJ& I 17:00 1'7:00 I 17,00 1 11.00 1 vol. 1 79 266 120 01 S5 341 41 II 143 109 85 1\ 339 636 124 01 PCI:. I 16.9 51.2 25.S 0.01 18.1 72.8 8.7 0,21 34.2 45.2 20.3 0.21 30.8 51.S 11.2 . 0.01. foul 1 465 \ 468 I 418 I 1099 Nigh I 17:15 1 17100 117.30 I 171 00 . I Vol. I 23 72 30 01 2~ 91 10 01 37 " 20 01 96 162 36 01 Tot.l 1 m I 125 I 111 1 294 I PHf I 0.930 I 0.936 I 0.941 I 0.934 I . APR-01-2B04 04:24 PM TDSSW 619 390.8427 P.29 . e . Group 1 lButt@rfield Stage Road ISR-79 IButterfield Stege Road (SR-N ISQuthbound Iw"'bound I Northbound IU.tboYnd Start I I I I I.n,vl. nlM I left rhru llight p~t:1 Left lhru RiAht ped.1 left Thru R;attt ped.1 ll!ft Thru Rlcht Peds I Total I I I I ( \leather Counted by , Board It 1..01;.1I'C1011 . cleor & Dry K. ThIne! D1-\<32 Butterfield St; Rd & SR~79 Traffic Dati Service southweat 9T13 Meine Avenue Lake.'de, CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 faX (619) 390.8427 Study N_' 0410401' S ito COde , 011104071 Start 0"0' 03/23/04 . PGse ; 2 Bu 't"..C.e~.ol Sta!J" "lWaol 266 569 121i1 7~ ~ t ~ l' 1034 li:R";'?9 . 61M ~ 03"23"&4 't... 41 oS 05:&!h>M 339 05:45pM r 341 1'7Q3 3459 lUll 636 ~ l' ..v 85 124 'It ~ 81111I Sa-19 N 893 -It ~ i V 475 189 143 85. J Bu t....Cl"la stau. ROa APR-131-2004 .04:24 PM TDSSW 619 399 8427 P..30 trafftc Oat. Servtco Southwest weathr Cleo' & Dry 9TlJ1 Maine Avenue at~ Nome' 0410~oeo Counted bv : J.Riet: Lokealde, C4 92040 Site Code : 00104~ Bosrcl 11 . 01-1430 (619) 390-8495 fl. (619) 390-&427 Slart Dote, 03/23 Locallon :MBnBerita Rd & De Portola Rd pove , 1 Group I IMargBritl!ll Road ID. Parrol. Road IlIoroa,l to Road IDe Portolo Rood I Southbound Iw..tbound INorthl>ound IEBatbound su,.t I I I I Ilnlvl. Time I left Thru Rlaht Peds' Lift Thru Rloht Peds I Left Thru Rtaht Pods I left Thru Rlaht podll TOul 1l3/25/04 I I I I 07,001 12 127 3 01 11 26 21 Of 20 247 10 01 0 4 10 01 491 07:151 16 161 2 01 II 28 18 01 IS 130 11 01 ) 7 7 01 4119 01:301 8 140 4 01 26 37 7 01 19 93 11 01 0 6 13 01 ~ 07:45f 12 134 2 01 19 4B 5 01 21 102 9 01 I 1l 10 21 376 ~ourl 40 562 " 01 67 139 51 01 75 572 41 01 4 28 40 21 1640 I I I I I 00'001 12 93 4 01 22 55 7 01 16 94 15 01 2 20 22 01 342 08:151 \2 102 5 01 18 42 20 01 28 108 12 01 1 13 11 01 3n 08'301 5 130 3 01 13 52 21 11 15 129 10 01 6 16 17 01 398 08.451 31 218 2 01 12 27 29 01 29 166 12 01 12 10 20 01 56l! Kouri 60 543 14 01 65 136 7T 11 88 497 49 01 21 59 70 01 16aC I I I 1 I lo,aLi 108 1105 25 01 132 275 128 11 163 1069 90 01 25 87 110 2J 332C X Apr. I 8.7 89.2 2.0 ~ 1 24.6 51.3 23,8 0.11 12.3 80.8 6.8 '1 ".1 38.8 49.1 0.81 X Int. I 3.2 33.2 0.7 -I 3.9 8.2 3,8 -I 4.9 32.1 2.7 -I 0.7 2.6 3.3 '1 Pesk HOur Analyafa By Entire Intersection for the P.riodi D7:00 on 03/23/04 to 08~45 on 03/23/04 1hne I 08:00 I 08:00 I 08.00 1 08,00 I Vol. I 60 543 14 01 65 136 7T 11 sa 497 49 01 21 59 70 01 Pet. I 9.7 88.0 2.2 0.01 23.2 48.7 27.5 0.31 13.8 78.3 7.7 0.01 14.0 39.3 46.6 o'Oi. Toul I 617 I 279 I 634 1 150 Kigh I 08,45 I DB'15 1 08:45 1 08,00 VoL I 31 218 2 01 18 42 20 01 29 166 12 01 2 20 22 01 Tot.l I 251 I 80 I 207 I 44 I P~f I 0.614 I 0.871 I 0.765 I 0.852 I . APR~01-2004 04:25 PM TDSSW 619 3913 8427 P.31 . weather Co""ud Py , Hoard , Locatfon cleer & Dry J.Riee 01-1430 :MargaritB Rd & De portolo Rd Trafffc Data Service Southwest 9173 Maine Avenue lakeaid., CA 92040 (619) 390.8495 fe. (619) 390-8427 s,uc!y ......, 041040&0 81t. Code . DD1D4080 itert Ddte' 03123/04 pege , 2 Group 1 IHorgerl t. ~oed \0. Portole Roed IHergerl to Roed IDe Portola Road ISou'hbound Iw..,bol.#ld I Northbound IEe.tbound i Start I I I I Il",vl. i: Time I lef, Thru Rf hI Ped~ Le , Thru Rl hI Peds L i " P. Thru Ri padsl Tout I I ~ ! . Ma.P9'a.%l'ita Rtlad J.4 543 595 &9 ~ ~ ~ l' lUll Da .."",tala "A." 1 238 oE- 13"23/94 1::.. 77 ..a- 1:9~a.. 21 :4 aM f- 136 -7 388 1'88 441 S9 I ..v ItS 78 'It ~ 168 De por-tola Road N 1312 ..L- 1 T r 678 497 88 41 Ma~aaplta Roa APR-01-2004 94:25 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P.32 Traffic Data Servi~Q Southwest Ueawer clear & Dr)' 9773 ~Ine Avel'lUe study NIlllO' 0410.081 Ccuntod by : J.A:ice ~.ko.ldo, CA 92040 51.. Cod. : 00101081 8Qlilrd" Dl.I430 (6'9) 390-8495 I.. (619) 390-8427 st.f. D.t.: 03/23. t.ocnitm :MargaritD Rd & De Porcola Rd ,.go , 1 Group 1 IM.rg.rl'o ~o.d IDo PortoL. Rood IM.rg.rit. Rood IDe portal. Rood ISouthbound IWostbound 1 Northbourd le..tbo,""" Star'C I I 1 1 eft Thru.. Rt ht ods Left Thru sl 03/23f04 I I I 1 16,001 " '60 3 01 14 13 12 01 19 20~ 8 01 5 n 39 01 522 16:151 14 166 0 01 10 21 19 01 16 212 17 01 I 40 57 01 579 16'301 10 '28 0 01 8 19 6 01 17 155 7 01 4 32 43 01 41'1 16:451 7 187 2 01 13 20 6 of 23 184 11 01 .2 41 10 01 566 ~ourl 42 641 5 01 4S 79 43 01 75. 756 43 01 12 '46 209 01 209/ I I I 1 I 17:001 ~1 146 , 01 13 '8 12 01 29 218 23 01 4 38 69 01 59i 17:15[ 13 '91 , 01 8 12 7 01 IS 199 21 01 8 .69 60 OJ 60/ 17:l01 20 '69 I 01 1 18 8 01 30 222 21 01 " 60 75 01 64. '7,451 21 183 2 01 17 12 18 01 22 227 31 01 9 .52 48 01 641 Houri 75 6119 5 01 4S 60 4S 01 96 866 96 01 32 219 252 01 2481 I I 1 I I ToUl! 117 1330 10 01 90 139 88 01 171 1622 139 01 44 . 36S 461 01 lt571 ~ Apr. 1 8.0 9,.Z 0.6 -I 28.3 43.8 27.7 -I 8.8 83.9 7.' -I 5.0 41.9 52.9 .1 ~ Int. 1 2.5 29.0 0.2 -, 1.9 3.0 1.9 -I 3.7 35.4 3.0 -, 0.9 7.9 10.0 -I Peak HoUr AnalYSle 8y Entire I"teraectlon for the Period: 16:00 on 03/23/04 to 17145 on 03/23/04 TIme 1'7,00 1 17,00 111:00 I ,7,00 I yol. I 75 689 5 01 45 60 4S 01 96 866 96 01 32 219 ZSZ of Pcl:. I 9.7 89.5 0.6 0.01 30.0 40.0 30.0 0.01 9.0 81.B 9.0 0.01 6.3 43.5 50.0 0.01 Tol.l .1. 169 1 150 I 1058 I 503 I. High I 17:45 I 17:45 I \7,45 I 17,30 VDL. I 21 183 2 01 17 12 18 01 22 221 31 01 11 60 75 01 Total I 206 I 47 1 280 I 146 I P~f I 0.933 I 0.797 1 0.944 I 0.861 I . : .APR-81-2004 04:26 PM TDSSW 61'91 3'910 a~27 P..33 . .Weather . CoUltlld by I Soard tI location Cleaf & Dry J.Sle< 0,.,430 :Margarita Rd.& Oe Portela Rd Traffic Data ServicB Southwest 9ml4oineAvonue Laknid., CA 92040 (619) 390-8495 fa. (619) 390-8427 :, Stucfy N_. 04104081 81 to Code I 00104081 Stort Oote. 03/21/04 Page : 2 Croup 1 !Mar9artta Rotad loe Portola Aoed I~.rg.rtta Road 10. portolo Road I southtxhJnd l~e.tbound I Northbound I Eastbound Start I I I I Ilntvl. Tfme I left Tnru Right Poo'Jl left Thru Riaht Pedol left ThrtJ Ri<Jht Pedal Left thr-u RfAht Peds I lou\ I I I I I , e MaI'9....i t.. Ro..d 'Ii') ')43 J 7:1 t It l' 1712 Do po..tala ......... 161 ~ G13/23/G14 ~ 45. ...1- G1:J:IiIG1PM 32 G1:1:4:1PM ~ 611 -4 664 248B 549 219 l' -V 45 252 'V ~ 3!J1lI . D.. pa..to 1 a Road N 2844 .!,. 1 i r 986 96 866 96 H...........it.. Road . APR-131-2004 04:26 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 p.34 Trafftc Data Service Southwest Uenher I ctcilr & Dry 9713 Matne Avenue Stuctv M_' 0~104D90 counted ~ : C.parish Lakeside, CA 920~0 Slto Cedo . 011104090 Board It , oH42; (619) 390-8495 fox (619) 390-8427 "or. Do'.' 03/2!/~ locatfon;R~ H~w~ Pkwy I Vail Ranch Pk~y p.~e , 1 Graup 1 I~ed H.w~ Porkwoy . IVoU ~allCh Parkway IGoLf Course Entrance IVlil Ronoh PorkwlY ISouthbo<ltd l\leotbound INorthbound leolt- Start I I I I Iln'VI, lhr~ I Left Thru ~f.h. podol left Thru RiQht: Pedol lift Thru Rloht peds I ll!ft Thru Rtaht peds I hut 03123/04 I I I I 07:001 22 7 86 II 0 19 54 21- I I I 71 156 5 2 01 364 01:151 17 13 119 01 I 12 26 01 0 I 1 01 93 6 I 01 290 01:301 31 1 T03 21 0 12 44 01 0 , 0 3\ 96 13 2 01 314 07:45f 25 4 105 11 0 30 42 01 0 0 0 11 tl7 17 I 01 343 ICourl 95 31 413 41 , 73 166 21 I 3. 2 . II I 462 4\ 6 01 1311 I I I I I 08,001 24 2 106 21 1 19 47 21 I 2 0 '1 112 31 I 01 351 08:151 33 1 100 21 0 12 3& 31 0 0 I '1 .95 9 0 01 295 04150 I 27 I 102 01 I 16 44 11 2 0 0 3\ 18 15 0 01 294 08,:'51 31 3 120 11 0 23 78 of 0 0 , 41 174 17 0 01 452 Houri 115 7 426 51 2 70 2" 61 3 2 2 91 459 72 I OJ 1592 I I I I I 'ouII 210 38 841 91 3 '" 3T7 81 4 5 :, 201 921 113 1 01 2703 \ Apr. I 19.1 3.4 76.5 0.81 0.5 26.9 70.9 1.5\ 12.1 15.1 12.1 60.61 88.4 10.8 0.6 .j X Inl. I 7.7 1.4 31.1 0.31 0.1 S.2 13.9 . 0.21 0.' 0.1 0.1 0.7\ 34.0 4.1 0.2 -I P.ok Hour Analy.i. By Entir. Intor...lfon for 'h. perIod, 07,00 on 03123/04 '0 08,45 on 03/23/04 11.. I OB.OO 1 08,0ll I 08,00 1 08:00 I Vol. I 115 1 428 51 2 70 211 61 3 2 2 91 459 72 , 01 Pet. I 20.1 1.2 77.\ 0.91 0.6 24.2 73.0 2.01 18.1 \2.5 12.5 56.21 86.2 13.5 0.\ 0.01 Totll~ I 555 I <!89 I 16 I 53<! I. Ki~h I 08:45 1 08:~5 I 08:30 I 08,45 Vol. I 31 3 120 'I 0 23 18 01 2 0 0 31 174 17 0 01 Tout I 155 I 101 I 5 1 191 I PH' 1 0.8'5 I 0.r1S I O.BOO I 0.696 I . . . . ~PR-01-2ee4 04:27 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 ~ather Clear & Dry Coun'" by, c,parlsh Boord # ,P1-14Z5 Locs'ion:Red Hawk pkwy & Vall Ranch Pkwy Traffic Date Service South~e8t 9m "alne Avonue Lakeside, CA 9Z040 (619) ~90-8495 fo. (619) ~90'8427 P.35 Study H_..1l4104l1'/Q 81 t. Codo : DD1D4090 start Detel 03/23/04 'IQlt r 2 G.-oup 1 IRed Howk Parkway Ivall Ranch Parkway .IGal f Course Entrance Ivall Ranch Porkway I Southbound Iw..,- I Nortl1bound IE..tbOl.lfld Start I I I I Iln..'. ~eds .ft Thru Ri ht P~dl!l .f' hru Ri h It .Th 0 I I I I Red Hawk Pal'k..all :I 7 &72 428 115 ~ ~ ~ l' 1221 Uai I RanDh P....kw..u I; . :lIU r 931'23I'B4 ~ 211 ..!l' 08:0".... 4~9 "8:45.... ~ 711 1933 13112 478 7a ~ l' .va 1 -;v ~ 1.89 Uail Ranch Pa..ktoall N 26 -l- 1 i f Ul 3 a a 9 Colt CDUI'S. Ent..ano. :=:tPR-01-2ee4 94:27 PM TDSSW 619 390 8427 P.36 Traffic Data Service Southwest 1J..rhr Clear & Dry 9m MailV!: Avenue S1:udy N....' 04104091 COU'Itod by , c~par18h Lak..lde, CA 92040 1\ to cod. : 00104090 Board ., I 01.1425 (619) 390'8495 fax (619) 390-8427 stert Data, 03123/~ location.Rod Howk PkWy & Vall Ranch PkWY P_gI . : 1 Group 1 IRed Kewk Parkwey IVal1 Ranoh ParkwBY IGolf Couraa Entrenca Ivell Ranch parkwBY \ S ",'hbouM Iw..tl>ound INorthbollnd I e.stbo\rd Start I I I \ lintvL. Time leI h e hru If ht ed1I u Poda I t Pod. T 03/23/04 1 I 1 I 16.001 43 3 161 2\ 0 22 44 01 I 13 0 'I 127 21 2 at 440 16,151 52 3 140 21 0 13 44 31 I 4 a 0\ 135 23 , 01 421 16:301 38 0 146 2\ 0 6 46 01 0 10 0 1\ 130 13 3 01 395 16:451 52 0 152 01 0 14 43 01 I 12 0 If 134 23 0 01 432 Houri 165 6 599 61 0 55 177 31 3 39 0 3\ 526 60 6 0\ 1688 I I I I I 17,001 56 2 147 0\ 0 14 37 01 3 9 0 21 122 30 0 01 424 17.151 50 0 140 al 0 24 39 41 I 3 2 31 120 31 I 0\ 416 .. ! 17.301 53 2 153 01 I 17 50 01 0 2 1 21 115 21 0 01 417 17.451 50 2 165 l' 0 12 29 01 4 '1 2 0' 111 27 I 01 41~ Houri 211 6 605 II ., 67 155 41 8 25 5 7\ 468 109 2 01 1674 I I I \ I To,al! 396 12 1204 7\ I 122 332 71 " 64 5 101 994 189 8 01 33eZ ~ Apr. I 24.4 0.7 74.3 0.41 0.2 26.4 71.8 1.5\ 12.2 71.1 5.5 11.11 83.4 15.8 0.6 .\ ~ In,. I 11.7 0.3 35.B 0.21 3.6 9.8 0,21 0.3 1.9 0.1 0.21 29.5 5.6 0.2 .\ Paak Hour An.lyals By En';re Inter..etton for the perIod: 16,00 on 03123104 to 17,45 on 03f23104 Ii... I 16,45 1'6'45 I 16.45 I 16.., I vat. I 213 4 592 01 1 69 169 41 5 26 3 81 491 105 I 01 Pet. I 26.3 0.4 13.1 0.01 0.4 28.3 69.5 1.61 11.9 61.9 7.1 19.0) 82.2 17.5 0.1 0.01 Tot8l I 809 I 243 I 42 I 597 I . High 117:30 117130 1'6,45 I 16145 1 Vol. I .53 2 153 01 I '7 50 DI , 12 0 'I 134 23 0 01 Total I 208 I 68 I 14 I 157 I P~F I 0.972 I 0.893 I 0.7S0 I 0.950 I , . . . I . i . APR-01-2004 84:27 PM TDSSW 619 2;90 8427 P.37 veather CLeor l Dry Counted by: C.Porllh Bo.rd # DI-1425 LocatlQn:Red Hawk Pk~ & V$I\ Ranc~ P~wy TraffIc Data s~rvic' 5outbW~lt 9m Mlltne Avenue lakesfde, CA .92040 (619) 390-8495 fa. (6'9) 390.8427 nlldy M..... 04'0l0091 Sit. COde , OD'0409O start Dote,. 03123104 Poge , 2 Group 1 IRed HaHk porkHoy. IVall Ranch PorkHoy IGolf Course EntrDnDe Iv.il R.n~h Park~.Y I Southbound IVe.tbound I Northbound IE..,bound Stsrt I I I I Iln.-l. tfme I left .l1)ru .RIAht Pede I Left Thru Right Peds I Uft Thru Right Peds I Left Thru Rloht pBdAI Toul I I I I I Rea Kawk Pax>kwalI II 696 :192 t 2'l: t ~ 149!! Uail R"nnlo o/l 666 oE- 13/23/l.!4 -t.. 16 9 491 ~ ~!~~J= ~ 69 1263 1691 :164 115:1 ~ I .v- 1 1 W ~ 32.1 Uall Ranch P....Jcwa.\I N 49 .j, ~ i r 6 26 5 3 B G It CO"l:'~. Entl:'ance . ApPENDIX B INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SHEETS . LJNSOOTT, LAw & GREENsPAN, engineers >. lLG Ref. 341-1403 Temecula Medical Center N.\14(!~'Sed-Rpt\Rcvised-ThI~\Appendii.~ CoI'Q"~doc e EXISTING CONDITIONS r - . .........-. ........~ ex am Mon Apr 12, .2004 10:01,49 Page 1-1 . -----------------------------~-------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report --~----------------------------------------------------------------------------- scenario: command, Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Gene~ation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: configuration: ex am ex am ex am ex am Default Impact Fee De~aul~ Trip aeneration Default Trip Distribution Default Paths Default Routes Default Configuration . Traffix 7.5.1115 (cl 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . e . ex pm Thu OCt 21, 2004 15,13:32 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Scenario: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ex pm command, volume: Geometry : Impact Fee: Trip Genera~ion: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: ex pm ex pm ex am Default Impact Fee Default Trip Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths Default Routes Default Configuration Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. ~icensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex am Thu Oct 21, 2004 14:39:44 Page 3-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (~se Volume Alternative) *****************************************.************************************** Intersection #1 SR 79/1-15 SB Ramps ********************..***************.***********...*.**...********************. Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vo1./Cap. (X), 1.323 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh), 184.3 Optimal Cycle: 1.80 Level Of Service: F .*...****....*.***...*.*******************.***********.**.*************..******* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____ ________I--~------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I COntrol: Split phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore' Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 volume Module: am peak Base Vol:, 0 0 0 1125 0 253 0 268 275 1098 203 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse, 0 0 0 1125 0 253 O. 268 275 1098 203 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1125 0 0 0 268 275 1098 203 0 Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1125 0 0 0 268 275 1098 203 0 PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 1125 0 0 0 268 275 1098 203 0 ____________1___ - -- _c_ --- - --11---------------11-- - ------ ------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 AdJustment, 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.57 0.57 0.60 0.65 0.65 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 2276 0 1235 0 1084 1084 2276 1235 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I Capacity. Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0-.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.48 0.16 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.36 0.55 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.36 1.32 0.30 0.00 uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.8 48.8 38.1 14.4 0.0 IncremntDe1, 0.0 0.0 0.0 153.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 162 176.5 153.8 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDe1: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj, 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 191.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 210225.3 191.9 14.7 0.0 User De1Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh, 0.0 0.0 0.0191.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 210225.3 191.9 14.7 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 20 21 40 4 0 ******************************************************************************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG1 SAN DIEG01 CA . . . I ;. . ex pm Thu Oct 21, 2004 15:13,33 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation Report 2000 ~CM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 SR 19/I-15 SB RampS ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see), 120 Critical VOl./Cap. (X), 0.934 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay {sec/veh}: 4.8.6 Optimal Cycle: 136 Level Of Service: 0 ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------I---------------il---------------II---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1. 0 0 1. 1. 0 2 0 1. 0 0 ------------1---------------1 1------------.--1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol, 0 0 0 1373 0 158 0 591 198 493 528 0 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse, 0 0 0 1373 0 158 0 591 198 493 528 0 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 0 0 0 1373 0 0 0 591 198 493 528 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1373 0 0 0 591 198 493 528 0 PCE Adj' 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 0 0 0 1373 0 0 0 591 198 493 528 0 ____________I_______________II_______________II____~__--------11---------------1 Saturation FlOW Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.80 0.80 0..81 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1..00 0.00 1.50 0.50 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: .0 0 0 3081 0 1672 0 2289 767 3081 1672 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..26 0.26 0.16 0.32 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0;00 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.45 0.00 Volume/Cap:.O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.930.00 0.00 0.000.93 0.93 0.93.0.71 0.00 Uniform Del, 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.3 42.3 49.0 26.7 0.0 IncremntDe1: 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 17.1 23.9 3.1 0.0 InitQueuDe1: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj, 0.000.00 0.00 1.000.000.00 0.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 De1ay/Veh, 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 59.4 72.9 29.8 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 AdjDe1/Veh, 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 59.4 72.9 29.8 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 18 18 13 16 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . ex am Thu Oct 21, 2004 14:39,44 Page 4-1 . -------------------------.------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) .............. ***.. *_...... ***:1' *........................ ** *............................... '*........ *** **.. ** ***...................... *........... Intersection #2 SR 79!I-1S NB RampS ******************************************************************************** Cycle .(sec): 120 Critical Vo1./Cap. (X): 1.275 Loss Time {sec} , 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh), 86.0 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service, F .**************************************************************.*.******..**.*** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound MovemeIit: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1------- - _n____II___________ __nl 1_______________1 1---- -----------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase - Protected Protected Rights: Include. Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 20 20 Lanes, 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 __________00 1_____00________110000____00___00 11___00__________11_____________00 I Volume Module: am peak Base Vol, 110 0 490 0 0 0 378 1104 0 0 1159 1276 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 110 0 490 0 0 0 378 .1104 0 0 1159 1276 User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 110 0 490 0 0 0 378 1104 0 0 1159 1276 Reduct Vol< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 110 0 490 0 0 0 378 1104 0 0 1159 1276 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001..00 1.00 1.00 I_D.o. 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 110 0 490 0 0 O. 378 1104 0 0 1159 1276 ____c_______!______n_n____1 I-n--.oo-n-nc-I 1___00____00____11______ ---------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.94 0.99 0.74 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.90 0.99 0.99 0.90 0.84 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 2.00 0_00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1_00 Final Sat. ,1794 0 2824 0 0 0 1794 5154 0 0 5154 1605 ____________I___nnn____n 11_______________11_____00___00___11_______________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.06 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.80 crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 VOlume/Cap: 0.45 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.27 0_00 0.00 0.36 1.27 uniform Del: 47.7 0.0 51.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 11.0 22.6 IncremntDel: 1.3 0.0 142.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 147.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 131.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0_0 oeiay Adj, 1.000.00 1.00 0.000.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Oelay/Veh, 49.0 0.0 194.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 197.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 11.0 154.2 User oelAdj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Adjoe1/Veh, 49.0 0.0194.4 0.0 0.0 0.0197.4 .3.4 0.0 0.0 11.0 154.2 HCM2kAvg: 4 0 18 0 0 0 27 4 0 0 7 81 **************************************.*..************************************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . . . . MITIG8 - ex pm Wed Nov 3, 2004 12:44:31 Page 1-1- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------.-------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operat~ons Method (Base Volume Alternative) ****.*.*****~************************************~****************************** Intersection #2 SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps *********************************************************************.*~*.****** Cycle (sec) , 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X), 1.308 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 95.9 Optimal Cycle, 180 Level Of Service, F *****.*.~****************************~****************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L . T R _____~______I______c________II_______c_______1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected protected' Rightf::1 : Include Include Include include' Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 20 20. Lanes, 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0.1 ___________ -1-------cC- _u~_II---------------II--------- ------11------ ---------1- Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol, 388 0 1142 0 0 0 125 1750 0 0 697 904 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse, 38& 0 1142 0 0 0 125 1750 0 0 697 904 User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.0.0 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.;)01.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 388 0 1142 0 0 0 125 1750 0 0 697 904 Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. Reduced vol: 388 0 1142 0 0 0 125 1750 0 0 697 904 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 MLF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00. Final Vol., 388 0 1142 0 0 0 125 1750 0 0 697 904 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: . sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. Adjustment: 0.81 0.85 0.64 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.78 0:72' Lanes, 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 . Final Sat., 1538 0 2422 0 0 0 1538 4420 0 0 4420 1376 ------------1---- -- ---------11----- ----------11----- ----------11---------------1 '." Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.25 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.16 0,66, Crit Moves: **** **** "'***'. Green/Cycle, 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.49 0-.49 Volume/Cap, 0.72 0.00 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.32 1.34 Uniform Del, 33.7 0.0 38.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.9 18.1 0.0 0.0 18.5 30.6. IncremntDel, 4.6 0.0 161.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 163.1. InitQueuDe1, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj, 1.000.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00.0.001.00 1.00 De1ay/Veh, 38.3 0.0 200.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.4 18.9 0.0 0.0 18.6 193.7 User DelAdj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00.. AdjDe1/Veh, 38.3 0.0200.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.4 18.9 0.0 0.018.6193.7 HCM2kAvg, 14 0 40 0 0 0 8 16 0 0 5 62.. ********************************************************************************. Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Do~ling Assoc. Licensed to LLG1 SAN DIEGO I CA , I I i. ex am ~u OCt 21, 2004 14,39,44 Page 5-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *~********************************************.*******-************************** Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street ' . *.******.***************.,***********~******************************************. Cycle (see), .120 Critical Vo1./cap. (X), 0.673 Loss Time {see}: 9 (Y+R ~ 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.8 Optimal Cycle: 49 Level Of -Service: B ***********************************************************.***~**************** . Apprt?ach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ----------- -I c-----------n-II----------- ----11----- ----------11---------------1 control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes, 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol, 32 6 17 129 7 202 62 1490 14 7 2156 186 Growth Adj., 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Iilitia1 Bse, 32 6 17 129 7 202 62 1490 14 7 2156 186 User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 32 6 17 129 7 202 62 1490 14 7 2156 186 Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 32 6 17 129 7 202 62 1490 14 7 2156 186 PCB Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 32 6 17 129 7 202 62 1490 1.4 7 2156 186 ------------1-- -- ------ -----11---------------11------ ---------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: . Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.77 0.77 0.93 0.98 0.73 0.93 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1_00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat., 1769 380 1077 1769 1862 ,1393 1769 5083 1583 1769 5083 1583. _________---1---------------11---------------11 _______________11___________.____ I Capacity Analysis ~odule: Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.42 0.12 Crit Moves: **** ****. **** **** Green/Cycle, 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.67 0.67 0.01 0.63 0.63 VOlume/Cap' 0.67 0.59 0.59 0.34 0.02 0.67 0.67 0.44 0.01 0.44 0.67 0.19 Uniform Del: 57.9 57.7 57.7 39.8 37.1 43.2 55.9 9.1 6.5 59.1 1.4_2 9.3 IncremntDe1, 31.8 21.1 21.1 0.5 0,0 5.9 17.8 0.1 0.0 17.7 0.6 0.1 InitQueuDe1, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Delay Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh, 89.678..8 78.8 40.437.1 49.1 73.7 9.1 6.5 76.914.8 9.4 User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 89.6 78_8 78.8 40.4 37.1 49.1 73.7 9.1 6.5 76.9 14.8 9.4 HCM2kAvg: 2 2 2 4 0 8 4 8 0 1 17 3 ******************************************************************************** . Traffix 7_7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIE~O, CA . e , . . ex pm Thu Oct 21, 2004 15:13:33 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 200Q.HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ........**..**....****..**........***..**.**...........*******..*******.***..*** Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street *******.****.****.*********************.*********..***..*.*.*.*.*********.****** cYcle (see): 120 Critical vol./cap. (X): 0.805 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 22.4 Optimal Cycle: 73 Level Of Service: C ***..*****.********....**************..******************...*****....**..******* Approach: NorthBound' SouthBound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------I--c------------II---------------II---------------1 I-----~---------I control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 __n._n____I_uc____u_____II--u--------u-II---u-n-------II---u___u__u_1 Volwne Module: pm peak . Base Vol: 16 14 20 321 18 48 158 2711 48 12 1614 190 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 14 20 321 18 48 158 2711 48 12 1614 190 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 14 20 321 18 48 158 2711 48 12 1614 190 Reduct Vol: 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 16 14 20 321 18 48 158 2711 48 12 1614 190 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 16 14 20 321 18 48 158 2711 48 12 1614 190 --------~---l---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------1. Saturation FlOW Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.98 0.73 0.93 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 0.41 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 615 879 17691862 1393 17695083 1583 17695083 1583 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.53 0.03 0.01 0.32 0.12 crit Moves: ***. ***. ***. **.* Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.66 0.66 0.01 0.52 0.52 volume/Cap: 0.32 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.04 0~15 0.61 0.80 0.05 0.80 0.61 0.23 Uniform Del: 57.2 58.0 58.0 44.0 36.3 37.3 47.9 14.6 7.0 59.4 19.9 15.5 IneremntDel: 3.7 68.0 68.0 11.3 0.0 0.2 4.0 1.5 0.0 134.9 0.4 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh, 60.9 126 126.0 55.3 36.4 37.5 51.9 16.1 7.1 194.3 20.3 15.6 User DeLAdj; 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 60.9 126 126.0 55.3 36.4 37.5 51.9 16.1 7.1 194.3 20.3 15.6 HCM2kAvg: 1. 3 3 14 1. 1. 7 25 1 1. 14 4 *.******..*.****.*..*.***************.*********.***.****************.*********.* Traffix .7.7.0715 (cJ 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex am Thu Oct 21, 2004 14:39:44 .page 6-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Leve1 Of Service computation Report 2000"HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) ..***.**************************************************************************. Intersection #5 SR 79/Pala Road ******************************.************************************************* Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.617 LoSs Time' (see) : 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 14.6 Optimal Cycle: 105 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************.************************* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________11------------- --11-------- - _____c 11--.-------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 ___~--------I---------------II---------------II _______________11 _______________1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 881 0 142 0 0 0 0 942 761 159 1454 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 881 O. 142 0 0 0 0 942 761 159 1454 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volwue: 881 0 121 0 0 0 0 942 7Gl 159 1454 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 881 0 121 0 0 0 0 942 761 159 1454 0 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 881 0 121 0 0 0 0 942 7G1 159 1454 0 ____________1_______ -------- II---------------II---~----- ______11- --- -------- - --I Saturation Flow Module: . Sat/Lane: 1900 1900' 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19.00 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3502 0 1615 0 0 0 0 5083 1583 1769 5083 0 ____________1--- ____________11------- --------11--- -- --------- _11_______________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.25 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.48 0.09 0.29 0.00 erit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.82 0.10 0.64 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.58 0.89 0.45 0.00 Uniform Del: 41.2 0.0 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 3.6 53.3 10.8 0.0 IncremntDel: 10.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 37.7 0.1 0.0 rnitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/veh: 51.2 0.0 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 4.3 91.0 10.9 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 AdjDel/Veh; 33.5 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 2.9 59.6 7.1 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 20 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 10 , 9 0 ******************************************************************************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, .CA . . , . ex pm Thu Oct 21, 2004 15:13:33 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) *****************************************************************************.*** Inter~ection #5 SR 7~/Pala Road . ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical vol./Cap. (X): 0.936 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 44.5' Optimal Cycle: 180 . Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1-----"---------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: OVI Include Ovl 'Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 ____________I_______________II____~__________II______c--------11---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 957 0 4S8 0 0 0 0 1747 n88 203 880 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 957 0 488 0 0 0 0 1747 1188 203 880 0 User Adj; 1.001.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 957 0 415 0 0 0 0 1747 1188 203 880 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 957 0 415 0 0 0 0 1747 1188 203 880 0 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final vol.: 957 0 415 0 0 0 0 1747 1188 203 880 0 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o~oo 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3502 0 1615 0 0 0 0 .5083 1.583 1.769 5083 0 n_ _________1_______ u_____ _11_____ __________11____ -----------11-- ____"__u__ -c 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.27 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.75 0.11 0.17 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.83 0.09 0.70 0.00. Volume/Cap: 1.23 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.90 1.23 0.25 0.00 Uniform Del: 46.7 0.0 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 6.B 54.4 6.4 0.0 InerernntDel:115.1 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 8.9 145.5 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 161.8 0.0 47.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.014.2 15.7199..9 6.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0:91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 AdjDel/Veh: 146.9 0.0 43.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 14.2 181.5 5.8 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 33 0 16 0 0 0 0 13 33 15 4 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (e) .2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex am Thu Oct 21, 2004 14:39:44 page 7-1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----~-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) *************************.**********************..************************.*.*** Intersection #7 SR 79/Avenida De Missiones *********************************************************************.********** Cycle (see): 100 Critical vol./cap. (x): 0.384 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 3.4 Optimal Cycle: 34 . Level Of service: A **********************.********************************************************* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11_____----------1 Control: Split Phase ~plit Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1. 1 0 11 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________11_______________11 _______________11_______.________1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 41 0 7 0 1 1 5 1018 22 3 1625 0 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001,00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 0 7 0 1 1 5 1018 22" 3 1~25 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 41 0 7 0 1 1 5 1018 22 3 1625 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 0 7 0 1. 1. 5 1018 22 3 1625 0 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final vol.: 41 0 7 0 1 1 5 1018 22 3 1625 0 ____________1_______________11 _______________11_______________11_______________ I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 ~900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 1.33 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1809 0 1615 19001172 2343 35025187 1615 18055187 1900 ____________1_______________11_______________ 11_______________11_______________1 Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.01 0.82 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.38 0.19 0.38 0.24 0.02 0.24 0.38 0.00 Uniform Del: 45.3 0.0 44.5 0.0 49_8 49.8 49.7 2.2 1.8 49.4 .2.5 0.0 IoeremntDel: 2.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 41.3 8.8 17.9 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 47_6 0.0 44.8 0.0 91.2 58.5 67.6 2.2 1.8 59.3 2.5 0.0 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 l. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 l. 00 l. 00 l. 00 1. 00 AdjDeI/Veh: 47.6 0.0 44.8 0.091.2 .58.6 57_6 2.2 1.8 59.3 2_5 0_0 HCM2kAvg: 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 ***************************************************************************~**** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DI~, CA . . . . MITW8 - ex pm Wed Nov 3, 2004 12:44:44 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations MethodCBase Volume Alternative} .********************~*******************************************************~** Intersection #7 SR 79/Avenida De Missiones ***********.~*********.*.*******.*****~*******************.************.******** Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.504 Loss Time (see): 12 CY+R = 4 see} Av~rage Delay (sec/veh): 2.4 Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of service: A ***.**~****.*********.***.*.*.***.**.******************************************* Appro'ach:. North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ----------- -1---------------11-------------- -11---------------11-- -------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0:' Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 l! 0 1 2, 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 -----c------I---------- -- ---11-------- -------II--------c ------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 2110 68 3 993 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00: Initial Bse: 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 2110 68 3 993 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 2110 68 3 993 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. Reduced Vol: 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 2110 68 3 993 0 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' Final' Vol. : 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 2110 68 3 993 0 ---- ----- ---1--- --- ---------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: . Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 ,1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900' Adjustment: 0.90 0.95 0.81 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.86 0.81 0.90 0.86 0.95' Lanes-: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0-0 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00.. Final- Sat.: 1718 0 1534 18051805 1805 35024928 1534 17154928 1805 _ -----------1------ ---------11- -------- -----c 11------------ ---11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: . Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.04 0.00 0.20 0;00, crit Moves:- **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03'0.00 0.03 0.000.00 0.00 0.000.85 0.85 0.000.85 0.00 VOlume/Cap: 0.50 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.50 0.24 0.00, Uniform Del: 48.0 0.0 47.5 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.2 49.7' 1.3 0.0: IncremntDel: 8.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 55.6 0.0 0.0' InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0_0 0.0 0_0 0_0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: ,56.7 0.0 48.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.2 105.3 1.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00~ AdjDel/Veh:' 56.7 0.0 4B.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.2105.3 1.4 0.0: HCM2kAvg: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 '0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - ex am wed Nov 3, 2004 12:42,50 Page 1-1 . -----------------------------------------.-------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Ba~e volu~e Alternative) '* * *...... **.. * * **...... **.. *.. * .'. * *.. * * * *** * *.. * *.. ** *** ** * *.. * *.... ** * * * * *.... * **.. *.... ** *** * * ** ~* Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk Parkway *** * * It.... * * * * * * **.. *.. * * * * * *** * * **** ** * * '*.. * * ** **...... ** **.. ** * * *.... ** * * ** *.*""""""" *** *-* Cycle (see): 120 critical Vol./Cap. (x): 0.597 Loss Time (sec); 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh); 39.8 Optimal Cycle: 77 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** ! I Approach: North Bound South Bound Eas.t Bound West Bound Movement: .L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------I---------------II------~--------I I-------~-------II---------------I control: Protected Protected Protected protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 _c__________I_______________II_______________1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: am peak . Base Vol: 438 438 169 118 438 182 273 676 162 271 880 116 Growth Adj: l.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 LOO 1.00 Initial Bse: 438 438 169 118 438 182 273 676 162 271 880 116 User Adj: 1.001.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF volume: 438 438 144 118 438 182 273 676 162 271 880 116 Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 0 6 0 0 Reduced Vol: 438 438 144 118 438 182 273 676 162 271 880 116 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.001,00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 438 438 144 118 438 182 273 676 162 271 880 116 c___________I_______________1 I--------c------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 Final Sat.: 34323538 1583 3432 3538 1583 34325083 1583 17695083 nnn_nn_l_n__n___n___11 nnn__n__n_ll_nnn__n_n_II____.___________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.17 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.32 0..32 volume/cap: 0.60 0.41 0.30 0.29 0..59 0.55 0.51 0.60 0.46 0.60 0.54 .0.23 Uniform Del: 42.6 33.4 32.2 48.1 42.9 42.5 46.5 41.9 40.4 39.2 33.3 29.7 1neremntDel: 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.3 2.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 2.2 0.4 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00. Delay/Veh: 43.9 33.7 32.6 48.4 44.2 44.5 47.3 42.7 41.4 41.4 33.6 .29.9 User DelAdj, l. 00 l. 00 1. 00 1. 00 l. 00 1. 00 l. 00 l. 00 l. 00 l. 00. 1. 00 1. 00 AdjDe1/Veh: 43.9 33.7 32.6 48.4 44.2 44.5 47.3 42.7 41.4 41.4 33.6 29_9 HCM2kAvg: 8 7 4 2 8 7 5 8 6 10 9 3 ************.**********************************************************.********* e .1900 0.83 1.00 .1583 Traffix 7._7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, C!\ . . e . MITIG8 - ex pm Wed Nov 3, 2004 12:44:53 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation Report 2000 HCM-Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk parkway ****************************************************************************.**** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.887 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4" sec) Average'Delay (sec/veh): 46.3 Optimal Cycle: 113 Level Of Service:' D ********************************************************************************- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R _______ _____1_______________11_______________11_______ --------11-----'- -- __~n_1 Control: Protected protected protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 25. 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 0 2.0 i. 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 352 603 193 284 756 136 426 1331 358 389 620 145 Growth .Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 352 603 193 284 756 136 426 1331 358 389 620 145 User Adj: 1.001.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PI!F Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 PIIF Volume: 352 603 164 284 756 136 426 1331 358 389 620 145 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 352 603 164 284 756 136 426 1331 358 389 620 145 PeE Adf: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 352 603 164 284 756 136 426 1331 358 389 620 145 ------------I-------c-------II---------------I 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: . 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.89 0,83 0.93 0.89 0.83 Lanes, 2.002.00 1.00 2.002.00 1.00 2.003.00 .1.00 1.003.00 1.00 Final Sat., 34323538 1583 34323538 1583 3432 5083 1583 17695083 1583 _________0__1_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.12 0.09 crit Moves: **** **:a.* **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.23 0,30 0.30 0.25 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.67 0.41 0.81 0.89 0.36 0.54 0.89 0.77 0.89 0.39 0.29 uniform Del: 52.3 40.2 37.2 52.8 44.0 37.8 40.4 40.4 38.5 43.5 32.4 31.3 IneremntDel: 20.7 2.0 0.7 13.4 11.1 0.6 0.7 6.8 7.4 19.1 0.2 0.3 InitQueuDel: O~O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh, 73.0 42.1 37.8 66.2 55.1 38.4 41.1 47.1 46.0 62.6 32.6 31.7 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 .1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.042.1 37.8 66.255.1 38.4 41.147.1 46.0 62.632.6 31..7 HCM2kAvg: 10 11 5 8 17. 4 8 19 14 18 6 4 ***********************************~******************************************** - Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG. SAN DIEGO. CA ex am Thu Oct 21, 2004 14:39:44 Page 9-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations -Method (~~se Volume Alternative) ********************************************************.**********~******~***** Intersection #9 ~R 79/SUtterfield Stage .Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical. Vol./Cap. (x): 0.443 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh); 17.2 Optimal Cycle: 64 Lev~l Of Service: B ******************************************************************************.. Approach: North Bound South Bourid Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ______u____ 1 _________~_____II_____________n 11_______________ II-----------n-- I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min.- Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 .1 ____________1________"______11 n_U________n II u__u_________II_____________u I Volume Module: am peak . Base Vol: 166 223 70 26 251 163 184 324 104 114 537 51 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 166 223 70 26 251 163 184 324 104 114 537 51 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 166 223 70 26 251 163 184 324 104 114 537 51 R:educt vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 166 223 70 26 251 163 184 324 104 114 537 51 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 166 223 70 26 251 163 184 324 104 114 537 51 n~_n______ 1_______________ II---------nnn II----nn------- II----n---------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.55 0.95 0.85 0.57 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1041 3610 1615 1087 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis MOdule: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.15 0.03 Crit Moves: ..*... .......* ...*** Green/Cycle: 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.34 0.34 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.28 0.44 0.24 0.17 0.34 0.44 0.09 Uniform Del: 29.3 26.2 25.7 25.2 26.4 27.4 39.6 25.6 24.9 42.2 31.1 27.4 IneremntDel: 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 oeiay/Veh: 30.126.3 25.8 25.326.5 27.6 40.425.7 25.0 42..8 31.4 27.4 User oelAdj: 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 AdjDe~/Veh: 11.3 15.1 14.9 14.6 15.3 15.9 23.3 14.8 14.4 24.6 18.1 15.8 HCM2kAvg:. 8 3 2. 1 3 4 6 4 3 4 8 1 **...***...***...**************.......-****...*********..........*****...******...****.***.........********.. . I I ,. , r Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . . . ex pm Thu Oct 21, 2004 15:13:33 . Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------~-------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 20QO HCM"Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *.********************.*************************~******************************* Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfleld Stage Rd . . *.. **.. **... **.. "'..... ** ** '" I: *...... ** '*... **'" ** *..." **............... *...... If.. **... *.* **... ..* * *."'... **... ** **... **." ** **...... Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.733 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R =. 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 34.3 optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West -Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected pro~ected Rights: Include Include Inclu~ :Include Min. Green: 2525 25 25 25 25 10 20 . 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1. 0 2 0 1. 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1. 0 2 0 1. ---------"--1---------------11---------------11---------------1 I--------~------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 189 85 79 266 120 339 636 124 85 341 41 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 Initial Bse: 143 189 85 79 266 120 339 636 124 85 341 41 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.0.0 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 143 189 85 79 266 120 339 636 124 85 341 41 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 143 189 85 79 266 120 339 636 124 85 341 41 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.001.0.0 1.0.0 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 0.0 1. DO 1. 00 1. 00 1. DO 1. DO 1.00 1. DO 1. DO 1. DOL DO 1. 00. Final Vol.: 143 189 85 79 266 120 339 636 124 85 341. 41 _nnnn___1 nnn"n__nn II--nn-n-n-n II--nn----n-n II-n---n--.--n-\ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900. 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.33 0.60 0.54 0.37 0.60 0.54 0.60 0.60 0.54 0.60 0.60 0.54 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 622 2274 1017 712 2274 1017 11372274 1017 11372274 1017 n_nn___n 1 nn_nn____n II n__"__n____n 11---n_-nn-_n II_n__nn~n___1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.23 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.30 0..28 0.12 0.07 0.15 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** *...** Green/Cycle: 0..310..31 0.31 0.310.31 0.31. 0.410.47 0.47 0.140.20 0.20 VOlume/Cap: 0.73 0..27 0.27 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.73 0.59 0.26 0.53 0.73 0.20 Uniform Del: 36.730.8 30.9 31.832.0 32.1 30.123.3 19.1 47.944.7 39.6 IneremntDel: 13.3 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.7 6~O 0.9 0.3 3.4 5.9 0.5 InitQueuDel: 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 50.0 31.0 31.3 32.8 32.3 32.8 ~6.0 24.2 19.4 51.4 50.6 40.0. User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 AdjOel/Veh: 50..0 31.0 31.3 32.8 32.3 32.8 36.0 24.2 19.4 51.4 50.6 40.0 HCM2kAvg: 10 3 2 4 4 4 12 9 3 4 7 1 ********************************************************************************. Traffix 7.7.0715 (e) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG1 SAN DIEGO, CA , ex am Thu OCt 21, 2004 14:39:44 page 11-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base yolume Alternative) ***********..*********..*******.**********************...******************.**** Intersection #11 Margarita Rd/De Portola Rd ********.*********************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.314 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 22.6 Optimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound. East Bound West. Bound. Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------1 I--------------~I Control: Protected Protected Protected protected Rights: Include Include Include _Ovl Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1. 0 1. 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 1 1 0 2 0 1.. ------------I---.----h------II ---------------II---------------II------n------- 1 volume Module: am peak . Base Vol: a8 497 49 60 543 14 21 59. 70 65 136 77 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 88 497 49 60 543 14 21 59 70 65 136 77 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBF Volume: 88 497 49 60 543 14 21 59 70 65 136 77 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 88 497 49 60 543 14 21 59 70 65 136 77 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 _Final Vol.: 88 497 49 60 543 1.4 21 59 70 65 136 77 ------------ 1 nh____n___n 1 1---------------1 In-------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3505 90 1805 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 ________n__1 n_____________ 1 1---------------1 1____n_____n__1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 Crit Moves: *..* *.** **.* *... Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.42 0.42 0.21 0.47 0.47 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.18 0.39 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.16 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.19 0.26 0.33 0.20 0.12 Uniform Del: 45.7 23.8 21.1 39.0 19.6 19.6 50.0 43.0 43.6 49.3 41.5 23.3 IncremntDel: 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 46.4 23.9 21.2 39.2 19.8 19.8 50.4 43.3 44.1 50.2 41.6 23.4 User DelAdj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 AdjDel/Veh: 36.9 19.0 16.8 31.1 15.7 15.7 40.0 34.4 35.0 39.9 33.1 18_6 HCM2kAvg: 3 6 1 2 6 6 1 2 2 3 2 2 **~*********..*****...**..*..****.*.****.*********..*.**~*********************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, ~ . . - . ex pm Thu Oct 21, 2004 15:13:33 Page 1.1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ********************************************************************************, Intersection ill Margarita Rd/De Portola Rd .********.*******~****.***************.**.**********************************~*** Cycle (see): 120 Critical VOl./Cap. (X): 0.514 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 29.3 Optimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service": C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ---------"--1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Pro~ected Rights: Include Include Include ovl Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 -- -- --------I---------------II---------------II-------c---- ---11------ --- ------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 96 866 96 75 689 5 32 219 252 45 60 45 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: .96 866 96 75 689 5 32 219 252 45 60 45 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 96 866 96 75 689 5 32 219 252 45 60 45 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 96 866 96 75 689 5 32 219 252 45 60 45 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 96 866 96 75 689 5 32 219 252 45 60 45 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I saturation Flow MOdule: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1."00 Final Sat.: 18053610 1615 18053580 26 18051900 1615 18053610 1615 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.24 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.02 0.12 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.25 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.54 0.13 0.50 0.52 0.52 0.14 0.40 0.54 0.30 0.07 0.08 uniform Del: 44.824.4 19..7 52.629.7 29.7 46.934.3 35.9 51.734.5 27.6 IneremntDel: 0.7 0.4 0.1 2.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.3 1.1 0.0. 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 45.5 24.7 19.8 55.2 30.0 30.0 47.2 34.8 37.2 52.8 34.5 27.6 User DelAdj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 AdjDel/Veh: 43.0 23.4 18.7 52.2 28.4 28.4 44.6 32.8 35.2 49.9 32.6 26.1 HCM2kAvg: 3 12 2 3 10 10 1 7 8 2 1 1 *****************************************************************************~** Traffix 7.7.0715 (0) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA , j. . , I. EXISTING + PHASE I OPERATIONS . . . e I , , , . ex +pl "am Scenario: Command: Volwne: . Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Thu Oct 21, 2004 14:51:07 Page 1-1 Scenario Report ex +pl. am OY w/ P AM ex am OY w/o P AM Default Impact Fee Default Trip Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths Default Routes Default Configuration .. Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Asso~. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex +p1 pm Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:04:1S Page 1-1 . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------~--~ ________________________________________________w_____________________________-- scenario Report Scenario: ex +pl pm command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: OY w/ P AM ex +pl pm OY w/o.P AM Default Impact Fee Default Trip Generation Default Trip Distribution Defaul t Paths Default Routes . Default Configuration . Traffix 7.7.0715 -(c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . ~ , , I . ex +pl am Thu OCt 21, 2004 14:51:08 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *..**t..*.......*..*.***....*.*..***...*...**.**.***.***t....**.**.*.*.......... Intersection #1 SR 79/I-15 SB Ramps **'" **.. *.. *.. *.. '* '*......... * * ** ** ** ** *** **.......... **.. **........ **."',... **.. '* ****.............. ~* *.*** '*.. *** * Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.349 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 193.2 optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Se~ice: p ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 2.0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 1149 0 253 0 279 275 1110 207 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1149 0 253 0 279 275 1110 207 0 user.Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 .1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1149 0 0 0 279 275 1110 207 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1149 0 0 0 279 275 1110 207 0 PCB Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 1149 0 0 0 279 275 1110 207 0 ------------I---------------II---------------11-c:------------11--.------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.57 0.57 0.60 0.65 0.65 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.01 0.99 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 2276 0 1235 0 1094 1079 22761235 0 ---- ---- _ ___1__.___ __________11_________ ------II----n---- -----11-- -------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.49 0.17 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.36 0.55 0.00 .volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 1.35 1.35 0.30 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.7 48.7 38.3 14.6 0.0 IneremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 164.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 172 172.3 164.9 0.3 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 202.2 0.0 0_0 0.0 221 221.0 203.2 14_8 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0202.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 221221.0203.214.8 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 21 21 42 4 0 ******************************************************************************** Traff.ix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . ex +p1 pm Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:04:16 P~ge ~-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . -----------~-------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of SerVice Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volwne Alternative) **************************.*******.*..**.***~.*********.**************.********. Intersection #1 SR 79/I-1S SB Ramps *****************************.************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical vol./Cap. (x): 0.956 Loss Time (see): .9 (Y+R -= 4 see) Average- Delay (sec/veh): 52.1 Optimal Cycle: i60 Level Of Service: D *******************~.**.*****.**..****************************.***************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------1 I-----------~---I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected. Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 o. 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 -~----------I---------------II---------------II---------------II-------~-------I Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 n88 0 158 0 597 198 535 540 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1388 0 158 0 597 198 535 540 O. User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 n88 0 0 0 597 198 535 540 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1388 0 0 0 597 198 535 540 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Fina1 Vol.: 0 0 0 n88 0 0 0 597 198 535 540 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.50 0.50 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3081 0 1672 0 2297 762 3081 1672 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: . Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.32 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.45 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 O.~O 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.71 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 43.0 48.6 26.5 0.0 IneremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 21.1 27.2 3.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.000.00 0.00 1.000.00 0.00 0.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.0 64.0 75.8 29.6 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.0 64.0 75.8 29.6 0.0 H042kAvg: 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 19 19 14 17 0 **********************************************-.********************************* . Traffix-7.7.0715 (0) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . I . I . ex +pl am Thu Oct 21, 2004 14:51:08 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ...*...... ****.............. **.. **,.... ** ** ***........ *. ***.......... *.*.**" **......... ** *.*"""'''''''' **.. ... *** .*......... Intersection #2 SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps *******************~*******************.**************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical vol./Cap. (X): 1.294 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average pelay (sec/veh): 90.1 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L. T R L T R _______u_u I--------n-----II nnnn__n_n II---n-n-----n II nn_~nnnn_1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2; 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ______uuu 1___hu___un_11 n_____huuull h_u_-nn----lluuuu-unn I Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 110 0 525 0 0 0 378 1139 0 0 1175 1285 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 110 0 525 0 0 0 378 1139 0 0 1175 1285 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 110 0 525 0 0 0 378 1139 0 0 1175 1285 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 110 0 525 0 0 0 378 1139 0 0 1175 1285 PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 110 0 525 0 0 0 3781139 0 01175 1285 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.94 0.99 0.74 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.90 0.99 0.99 0.90 0.84 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 2~00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1794 0 2824 0 0 0 1794 5154 0 0 5154 1605 _un_nnu I n_nh__nnn II nnnnn___ull_n_______n___11 h_nnn___h_1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.80 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.00 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29 O~28 0.00 0.00 0.37 1.29 Uniform,Del: 46.9 0.0 51.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.2 3.7 0.0 0.011.3 22.9 IneremntDel: 1.1 0.0 149.7 0.0 0.0 0.0155.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 140.0 InitQueuoel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj, 1.000.00 1.00 0.000.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 0.00 l.00 1:00 Delay/Veh: 48.0 0.0 201.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 205.8 3.7 0.0 0.0 11.4 162.9 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adjnel/Veh: 48.0 0.0 201.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 205.8 3.7 0.0 0.0 11.4 162~9 HCM2kAvg: 4 0 19 0 0 0 28 4 0 0 7 83 **********.********************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex +p1 pm Wed Nov 3, 2004.17:04:17 Page 4-1 . ------------------~---------------------------~-------------------------------~~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) **********************.*******************************t.**tttt.**.*.*tt....._**_ Intersection #2 SR 79/1-15 NB RampS . ********************.********************.************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.341 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 102.3 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F *t_..________.....__....._._.___*.__._.*_____.___._...*****************.***~**** Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ----~-------I---------------II---------------I I---------------II--------------cl Control: Split Phase Split Phase. Protected Protected Rights: Include . Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11_____________"_1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 3S8 0 1164 0 0 0 125 1771 0 0 751 933 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001..00 LOO. 1.001.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 Ini.tial Bse: 388 0 1164 0 0 0 125 1771 0 0 751. 933 User Adj: 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 388 0 1164 0 0 0 125 1771 0 0 751 933 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 388 0 1164 0 0 0 125 1771 0 0 751 933 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 388 0 1164 0 0 0 125 1771 0 0 751 933 ---------"-- I---------------II---------------II---------n----II _______________1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 19001900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.81 0.85 0.64 0.850.85 0.85 0.81 0.78 0.85 0.850.78 0.72 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1538 0 2422 0 0 0 1538 4419 0 0 4419 1376 _00__ -- _____100_____________11_____________ __11_____ _____n _ __11__ _______n____ I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.25 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.68 crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.35 0.000.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 VOlume/Cap: 0.72 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.35 1.38 Uniform Del: 34.0 0.0 39.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.9 18.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 30.4 IneremntDel: 4.8 0.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 178.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay{Veh: 38.8 0.0 216.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.5 18.9 0.0 0.0 18.7 209.2 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 38.8 0.0 216.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.5 18.9 0.0 0.0 18.7 209.2 HCM2kAvg: 14 0 42 0 0 0 8 16 0 0 6 66 *****.********.***************************************************************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . - ! ~ I i' . ex "+pl am Thu Oct 21, 2004 14:51:08 P<:ige .5:-1 -------------------------.------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level ,Of Service Computation Report 2,000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) .******************************************************************************* Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.678 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average. Delay (sec/veh): 16.8 Optimal Cycle: 50 Level Of Service: B ****************************************************************************~~~* Approach: North BoUnd South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________ 11_______________ 11_______________ 11_______________1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ----- ---- ___1_______ ________11_______________11__ _____________11_______________1 Volume Module: am peak . Base Vol: 32" 6 17 129 7 202 62 1560 14 7 2181 186 Growth Adj: l.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .Initial Sse: 32 6 17 129 7 202 62 1560 14 7 2181 186 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00. 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 32 6 17 129 7 202 62 1560 14 7 2181 186 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 32 6 17 129 7 202 62 1560 14 7 2181 186 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 32 6 17 129 7 202 62 1560 14 72181 186 ------------1---------------11---------------1 I---------------II-----~---------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.77 0.77 0.93 0.98 0.73 0.93 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.83 Lanes: 1.000.26 0.74 1.001.00 1.00 1.003.00 1.00 1.003.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 380 1077 17691862 1393 17695083 1583 17695083 1583 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.02 .0.02 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.43. 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/cycle: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.68 0.68 0.01 0.63 0.63 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.59 0.59 0.34 0.02 0.68 0.68 0.45 0.01 0.45 0.68 0.19 uniform Del: 57.9 57.8 57.8 40.0 37.2 43.4 55.9 9.1 6.4 59.2 14.2 9.2 IneremntDel: 33.0 22.0 22.0 0.5 0.0 6.2 18.6 0.1 0.0 19.8 0.6 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/veh:. 90.979.8 79.8 40.537.2 49.5 74.5 9.2 6.4 79.014.8 9.3 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Adjnel/Veh: 90.9 79.8 79.8 40.5 37.2 49.5 74.5 9.2 6.4 79.0 14.8 9.3 HCM2kAvg: 2 2 2 4 0 8 4 9 0 1. 18 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) "2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex +pl pm wed Nov 3, 2004 17:04:17 Page 5-1 e Level Of S~rvice Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************~************* Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street *************************************'******************************************* Cycle (see): 120 Critical VOl./Cap. (X): 0.814 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 22.5 Optimal Cycle: 75 Level Of Servi ce: C ************************.******************************************************* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L . T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 uuc_u._u_1 uuuuu__n_II____u____uu_II_____n____un II----u-----uu 1 v~lum.e Module: pm peak Base Vol: 16 14 20 321 18 48 158 2754 48 12 .1697 190 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Sse: 16 14 20 321 18 48 158 2754 48 12 1697 190 User Adj: 1.00 l.00. 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PBF Volume: 16 14 20 321 18 48 158 2754 48 12 1697 190 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 Reduced. Vol: 16 14 .20 321 18 48 158 2754 48 12. 1697 190 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: l.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 l.00 l.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 16 14 20 321 18 48 1582754 48 121697 190 ____________1 u~ _u_________11 n___._________II________ -------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.98 0.73 0.93 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 0.41 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat:: 1769 615 879 17691862 1393 176950831583 17695083 1583 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0~02 0.18 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.54 0.03 0.01 0.33 0.12 Crit Moves: **** Green/cycle: 0.03 0.03 VOlume/Cap: 0.32 0.81 Uniform Del: 57.2 58.0 IncremntDel: 3.8 71.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 Delay/Veh: 61.0 129 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 61.0 129 HCM2kAvg: 13 o . **** **** **** 0.03 0.81 58.0 71.4 0.0 1.00 129.4 1.00 129.4 3 0.22 0.81 44.3 12.2 0.0 1.00 56.5 1.00 56.5 14 0.22 0.04 36.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 36.6 l.00 36.6 1 0.22 0.15 37.5 0.2 0.0 1.00 37:8 l.00 37.8 1 0.14 0.63 48.5 5.0 0.0 1.00 53.4 1.00 53.4 7 0.67 0.81 14.6 1.6 0.0 1.00 16.2 l.00 16.2 26 0.67 0.05 6.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 6.9 l.00 6.9 1 0.01 0.81 59.4 140.2 0.0 1.00 199.6 l.00 199.6 2 0.53 0.63 19.7 0.5 0.0 1.00 20.2 1.00 20.2 15 0.53 0.23 14.9 0.1 0.0 1.00 15.1 1.0~ 15.1 4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 Cc} 2004 Dowiing Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . j I ~ ; . ex +pl am Thu OCt 21, 2004 14:51:08 ~age 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------.------------------------- Leve~ Of Service COmputation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 SR 79/Pala Road ". ********************************************************************~*********** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./cap. (X): 0.624 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): .14.9 Optimal Cycle: 109 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** App~oach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T - R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I---------------II---c---~-------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include OVl Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I Volume Module: am peak Base. Vol: 881 0 177 0 0 0 0 1012 761 171 1479 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 881 0 177 0 0 0 0 1012 761 171 1479 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 881 0 150 0 0 0 0 1012 761 171 1479 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 881 0 150 0 0 0 0 1012 761 171 1479 0 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 881 0 150 0 0 0 0 1012 761 1711479 0 ---- ---- ____1_____ __________.11_______________11_ -- ------------11-- ------- ------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 35Q2 0 1615 0 0 0 05083 1583 1769 5083 0 ----------- _1_______ --------11---------------11- --- - __________11____ -----------1 Capacity Analysis Module; Vol/Sat:. 0.25 0.00 0,09 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.48 0.10 0.29 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.82 0.11 0.64 0.00 VOlume/Cap: 0.90 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.59 0.90 0.45 0.00 Uniform Del: 41.5 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 3.9 52.9 10.7 0.0 IncremntDel: 10.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 37.6 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDe1: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 1.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 52.2 0.0 24.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 4.6 90.5 10.8 0.0 .User DelAdj: 0.660.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 AdjDel/Veh: 34.2 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 3.0 59.3 7.1 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 20 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 10 10 9 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2~04Dowling,Assoc.Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex +p1 pm -------~------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed Nav 3, 2004 17;04:17 page 6-1 e .. . '- . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Level Of serv~ce Computation Report 2000 HOM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ***.**..........***.****...*....******.****.******..*******...******~**...*.*.*. . Intersection is sa 79/Pala Road . ".*.***********...**************************.***********...*.*.......*********... Cycle (see): 120. Critical Vol./cap. (X): 0.961 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 47..6 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ..****************************************************.*.*****.****.******~**.** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound we-st Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________1 1---------------1 I-----c---------II--------~------j Control: Split Phase" Spli~ phase Protected Protected Rights ,Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 957 0 509 0 o. 0 0 1790 U88 245 963 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.nO 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 957 0 509 0 0 0 0 1790 1188 245 963 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 PHF volume: 957 0 433 0 Q 0 0 1790 1188 245 963 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 0 Reduced Vol: 957 0 433 0 0 0 0 1790 1188 245 963 0 PCB Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final vol.: 957 0 433 0 0 0 01790 1188 245 963 0 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______--------1 I-~---~---c-----I Saturation Plow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3502 0 1615 0 0 0 05083 1583 17695083 0 ________ ----1------- --------II----~- ----- ----11---------------11---- -----------1 capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.75 0.14 0.19 0.00 crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/CYCle: 0.22 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.81 0.11 0.71 0.00 volume/Cap: 1.26 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.92 1.26 0.27 0.00 uniform Del: 47.0 0.0 37.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 15.0 8.3 53.4 6.3 0.0 IneremntDel:126.1 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 10.9 150.2 0.0 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 1.00 0.000.00 0.00 0;00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 173;1 0.0 46.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.015.3 19.2203.6 6.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 AdjDel!Veh:"157.1 0.0 42.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.013.9 17.4 184.9 5.8" 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 33 0 17 0 0 0 0 14 37 18 4 0 ******************************************************************************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA e ~ , - . ex +pl am Thu Oct 2J.," 2004 14:51:08 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *************************************-******.*******.**************************** Intersection #7 SR 79/Avenida De Missio~es ****~************************************************.************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): 0,392 Loss Time -(see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.6 Optimal Cycle: 35 Level Of Service: A ***********************************************************************~******** Approach: "North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L .T R ------------1----0----------1 1---------------11---"-----------11---------------1. Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected . Protected Rights: Include Include. Include Inc;::lude Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1.0 0 1 1 0 1.! 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1. 0 3 0 1 _____n_____I__nn_n___n_llnn__n___n__11 n____n____n_11 nnnnnnn_1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 41 0 14 0 1 1 5 1123 22 6 1662 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 0 14 0 1 1 5 1123 22 6 1662 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 41. 0 14 0 1. 1. 5 1123 22 6 1662 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 0 14 0 1 1. 5 1123 22 6 1662 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00'1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 41 0 14 0 1 1. 5 1.123 22 6 1662 o. ------------I---------------II---------------II--"~-----------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.33 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1809 0 1615 1900 1172 2343 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1900 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.32 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.00 Uniform Del: 45.4 0.0 IneremntDel : 2 .4 0 . 0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1. 00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 47.8 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 47.8 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 2 0 **** 0.06 0.15 44.8 0.7 0.0 1.00 45.5 1.00 45.5 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.0 49.8 0.0 43.3 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 93.2 1.00 1.00 0.0 93.2 o 0 0.00 0.20 49.8 9.2 0.0 1.00 59.1 1.00 59.1 o **** 0.00 0.39 49.7 18.8 0.0 1.00 68.5 1.00 68,5 o 0.81 0.27 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 2.4 1.00 2.4 3 0.81 0.02 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.9 1.00 1.9 o 0.01 0.27 48.9 6.4 0.0 1.00 55.3 1.00 55.3 o .Page 7-1 o **** 0.82 0.39 2.5 0.1 0.0 1. 00 2.5 1.00. 2.5 5 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 o ******************.************************************************************* Traffix 7.7.0715 (el 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO,.CA ex +p1 pm Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:04:17 page.7-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------~----------------------------------------------------- . .. Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *.**......*.**.....**.*****.**......**.........*..***..***.*****~*********...*~*. Intersection #7 SR 79/Avenida De Missiones **.*******.********************.*..********~**.***.******..*****************.... Cycle (see): 100 Critical vol./Cap. (X): 0.498 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 2..6 Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of service: A .*.**.****.*****.....*.***.**.***.****...***....**********************...***.*** Approach: North Bound South BoUnd East BOund" West Bound Movement: L T R L T R. L T R L T R _C____n__ n 1_______________11__________ -----11---------------11----- ---- ----0-1 control: Split phase Split phase Protected .Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1! 0 1 2 0 3 O. i 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 23 0 8 0 0 0 0 2174 68 11 1118. 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 23 0 8 0 0 0 0 2174 68 11 1118 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 l.00 1.001.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 23 0 8 0 0 0 0 2174 68 11 1118 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 Reduced Vol: 23 0 8 0 0 0 02174 68 11 1118 0 PCEAd): l.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 23 0 8 0 0 0 0 2174 68 11 1118 0 n______ ____1_______________11_ _ ----------- --11----- _n_______.II_____._____~__ --I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Laue: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91. 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2_00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1809 O. 1615 19001900 1900 3686 5187 1615 18055187 1.00 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.04 0.01 0.22 0.00 Crit Moves: **** *.** ..** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.85 0.00 VOlume/Cap: 0.50 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.50 O.2~ 0.00 uniform Del: 48.1 0.0 47.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.3 49.1.1.4 0.0 IneremntDel: 8.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 16.5 0.0 .0.0 InitQueuDel: 0"0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 56.3 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.3 65.6 1.4 0.0 User oelAdj: l.00 l.00 1.00 l.00 l.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 l.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veb: 56.3 0.0 50.0 0.0 o~o 0.0 0.0 2_2 1.3 65.6 1.4 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 0 ****************************************************************.*************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 DOWling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, ~ . . - . ex +pl am Wed Nov 3, 2004 16:56:59 Page 1-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations "Method (Base Volume Alternative) *******************.******************************************************.*~*** Intersection #13 SR 79!ProjectO/W _ ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.409 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 8.8 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: A ********~**********..*.**.****..*.************.*..***********************.****** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ---------------------------1--------------- 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights-: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1- 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------I----~----------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume-Module: . Base Vol: 50 7" 50 47 2 30 112 1111 50 50 1500 100 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 7 50 47 2 30 112 1111 50 50 1500 100 user--Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 l.00 1.001:00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF volume: 50 7 50 47 2 30 112 1111 50 50 1500 100 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced VOl: 50 7 50 47 2 30 112 1111 50 50 1500 100 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 l.00 1.001.00 l.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 l.00 Final Vol.: 50 7 50 47 2 30 1121111 50 501500 100 _~__________I-----u---hc--II-------h------II------n---n--11 n___u_______" I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 -1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.92 -0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 0.12 0.88 2.00 0.06 0.94 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 203 1447 3502 102 1530 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 -- ___hn__ _1_ --------------11----------- ----I I----u---------I I----u ____u___1 Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.05 _ 0.08 0.69 0.69 0.09 0.71 0.71 Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.420.42 0.42 0.41- 0.41 0.41 0.31 0.04_ 0.31 0.41 0.09 Uniform Del: 53.6 52.2 52.2 56.9 55.5 55.5 52.7 7.1 5.8 51.1 7.3 5.5 IncremntDel: 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 55.9 54.3 54.3 59.4 58.9 58.9 53.7 7.2 5.8 52.2 7.4 5.5 User DelAdj: 0.700.70 0.70 0.700.70 0.70 0:70-0.70 0.70 0.700.70 0.70_ AdjDel/Veh: 39.1 38.0 38.0 41.6 41.3 41.3 37.6 5.0 4.1 36.5 5.1 3.' HCM2kAvg: 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 5 1 2 8 1 ******************************~*************************************~*******~***. Traffix 7.7..0715 {c} 2004 DoWling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex. +pl pm -----------------.-------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Nov 3, 2004 17,04:17 Page 12-1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation ~eport 2000 HCM Operations Method. (Base Volmne Alternative) *******.************.*****~*******..********T*********.****....**.*.****.*.***** Intersection #13 SR 79/Project D/w ****************.*************.**.*.******************.***..*...****.**.***.**** Cycle (see):. .120 Critical VOl./Cap. (X): 0.589 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 13.2 optimal Cycle: 48 Level Of Service: B *.***.*****.*.***.*************.******..****..**.***********************.******. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________1 I---------------II---------------II-----------c---I control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 O. 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 50 4 50 157 9. 100 69 2115 50 50 1128 61 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 4 56 157 9 100 69 2115 50 50 1128 61 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 50 4 50 157 9 100 .69 2115 50 50 1128 61 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 4 50 157 9 100 69 2115 50 50 1128 61 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 50 4 50 157 9 100 69 2115 50 50 1128 61 ------------1---------------11--------------"11----;----------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: . 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 0.07 0.93 2.00 0.08 0.92 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 121 1515 3502 135 1503 3502 5187 1615 18055187 1615 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.41 0.03 0.03 0.22 0.04 Crit Moves: **.. *...** ..*. *...** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.69 0.69 0.05 0.68 0.68 volume/Cap: 0.59.0.49 0.49 0.49 0.59 0.59 0.32 0.59 0.04 0.59 0.32 0.06 Uniform Del: 56.0 53.9 53.9 51.8 50.6 50.6 53.9 9.6 5.8 56;0 7.9 6.4 IncremntDel: 19.4 3.3 3.3 1.2 4.9 4.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 10.4 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 66.4 57.2 57.2 52.9 55.5 55.5 54.8 9.8 5.9 66.4 8.0 6.5 User DelAdj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.87 AdjDel/Veh: 57.8 49.8 49.8 46.0 48.3 48.3 47.7 8.5 5.1 57.8 6.9 5.6 HCM2kAvg: 3 3 3 3 5 5 2 14 1 3 6 1 *******************************.********.*****************..*.*.**.*****..*****. . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc". Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . ! I , i I t I I. I - I i . Level Of Service Computation Report 20~O HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ..... **.. **.... ."....... ** ** *...... **.... *......... **............. * .***.... **.. *** ***.. ~ ***.;,. **............. * ***.... 11'''' **** ** Intersection #14. De Portela Rd/project D/W *************************************.*****************************************. Average Delay (see/veh): 1.4 Worst case Level Of Service: B[ 10.9] ********************************************************************************. "Approach: North Bound South Bound. East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------------------------------------1---------------1 c --------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 _~__________I______________c 11---------------1 1---------------1 I-------------c-I Volume Module: Base Vol: 19 0 16 0 0 0 0 150. 52 46 238 0 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 19 0 16 0 0 0 0 150 52 46 238 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHFAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 19 0 16 0 0 0 0 150 52 46 238 0 Reduet. Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 19 0 16 0 0 0 0 150 52 46. 238 0 ---~--------I---------------II---------------I 1---------------11---------------1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx .xxxxx :xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx. xxxxx FOllowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx.xxxxx ____________1_______________11 _______________11_______________11---------------1 Capacity Module: . Cnflict vol: 506 xxxx 176 xxxx xxxx. xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 202 XXXX JCX?OCX Potent Cap.: .530 xxxx 872 xxxx.xxxx. xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1382 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 516 xxxx 872 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xx:xx xxxxx 1382 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.04 xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.1 xxxx 0.1 Stopped Del: 12.2 xxxx 9.2 LOS by Move: B * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xXxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * ApproachDel: 10.9 ApproachLOS: B MITIG8 - ex +pl am Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:07:53 Page 1-1 xxxxx xx:xx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx x:x:xxx xxxx xxxxx 7 . 7 xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * A * * LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx. xxx:xx xxxx xxxx xxxxx: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ** * *. * ** * xxxxxx * xxxxxx xxxxxx * * Traffix 7.7.071.5 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - ex +pl pm -----------------------~--~----------------------------------------------------- wed Nov 3, 2004 17:02:38 .Page 1-1 . ._-----------------~------------------------------------------------------------- Level -Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base volume Alternative) *******~*********************************************************~************** . . ". . Intersection "#14 De portela Rd/project n/w -*..................................*.................*************.***~*~***.*** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.3 Worst. Case Level Of service: B[ 14.3] *.t..*................................................*****..*~..**..****.***** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________I______n_____n II_nn__________II_______________II__u_c____C__n I control: Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ____________I_n____________II______uu_____11_________c_____II________nnc--I Volume Module: Base vol: 62 0 54 0 0 0 0 503 32 28 161 0 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 62 0 S4 0 0 0 0 503 32 28 161 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .PHF volume: 62 0 54 0 0 0 0 503 32 28 161 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 62 0 54 0 0 0 0 503 32 28 161 0 ___"________1_______________11____ _nu____ --II-----------n--II---------- ___n I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.4.xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx XXXXX XXXX XXXXX 4.1 XXXX x:xxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 XXXXX xxxx'xxxxx.XXXXX xxxx xxxxx 2.2 XXXX xxxxx. ____________1_______________11_______________1 1_______________\I________c______\ Capacity Module: . CIlflict Vol: 736 XXXX 519 xxxx xxxx xxx:xx xxxx xxxx XXXXX 535 XXXX XXXXX potent Cap.: 389 xx:xx 561 xxxx xxxx xx:xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1043 XXXX XXXXX Move Cap.: 381 XXXX 561 xxxx xxxx XXXXX XXXX XXXX xxxxx 1043 xxxx XXXXX Volume/Cap: 0.16 XXXX 0.10 xxxx: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 XXXX XXXX ------------\---------------11---------------1 \---------------1 1---------------1 Level Of Service" Module: Queue: 0.6 xxxx. 0.3 xxxxx XXXX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx XXXXX 0.1 XXXX XXXXX Stopped Del: 16.3 xxxx 12.1 xxxxx xxxx XXXXX XXXXX xxxx xxxxx 8.5 xxxx XXXXX LOS by Move: C .. B '" .. * * .. '" A .. * Movement: LT _ LTR _ RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared cap.: xxxx xxxx. xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx:XXXX xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx - xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx XXXX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxxx xxxx XXXXX Shared LOS: .., .. .. '" .. .. * .. * . * * ApproachDel: 1.4.3 xxxxxx XXXXXX XXXXXX ApproachLOS : B * * * . Traffix 7.7.0115 (c) 2004 Dowling AssOc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . - . ex +pl. am Wed Nov 3, 200416:58:13 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------~---------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******~***********************************************************************~* Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk Parkway ******************~********************************************************~**** Cycle (see): 120 critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.758 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 44.0 Optimal Cycle: 77 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************~*.' Approach: Movement: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L T RL T RL T RL T R --------_---1----------_____11_______________11_______--------1 I--------c------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include. Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0.1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11 _______________1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 473 448 169 118 438 210 275 705 178 271 950 127 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Initial Bse: 473 448 169 118 438 210 275 705 178 271 950 127 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj:. 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 473 448 144 118 438 210 275 705 178 271 950 127 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 473 448 144 118 438 210 275 705 178 271 950 127 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. Final Vol.: 473 448 144 118 438 210 275 705 178 271 950 127 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______________ 11_______________\ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.74 0.77 0.69 0.74 0.77 0.69 0.74 0.73 0.69 0.77 0.73 0.69 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 28282915 1304 28282915 1304 28284189 1304 14584189 1304 ------------1----------_____11______"________11_______________11_______________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.14 0.19 0.23 0.10 Crit Moves: *.** **** **'*. **.* Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.76 0.50 0.36 0.34 0.71 0.76 0.69 0.76 0.61 0.76 0.69 0.30 Uniform Del: 43.8 33.8 32.2 48.1 43".8 44_4 49.1 43.' 42.1 42.0 35.2 30.1 IneremntD~l: 5.4 0~4 0.5 0.6 3.8 11.5 5.3 3.7 3.9 9.1 1.6 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 49.1 34.3 32.7 48.7 47.6 55.8 54.4 47.3 46.0 51.1 36.7 30.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 49.1 34.3 32.7 48_7 47.6 55.8 54.4 47.3 46.0 51.1 36.7 30.5 HCM2kAvg: 10 7 4 2 9 9 6 10 7 11 11 4 ****************************************************************************~*** Traffix 7.7.b715 (c) 2004 DoWling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ex +pl pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:04:17 p~ge .8-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000. HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) *.*****..**...*.*..****...***.*.*...*.*.*.*...~*.*....***.*.*...*.***.*.**...... Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk parkway ..***.........**..*.........................*................*.**............... Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol. leap. (X): 0.952 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 54.6 Optimal Cycle: 160 Level Of service: D *....................***...****...**.*.......**..*.*..........*.*..........**.** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bqund Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1------"--------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25. 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 -----------"1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 373 609 193 284 756 153 434 1426 412 389 663 152 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 373 609 193. 284 756 153 4341426 412 389 663 152 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 373 609 164 284 756153 434 1426 412 389 663 152 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 Q. 0 Reduced Vol: 373 609 164 284 756 153 434 1426 412 389 663 152 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.001.00 1.001.00 l.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.001.001.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Pinal Vol.: 373 609 164 284 756 153 434 1426 412 389 .663 152 ____________1_______________11_______________11___________----11------____-u-- 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.87 0.89 0.80 0.87 0.89 0.80 0.87 0.86 0.80 0.89 0.86 0.80 Lanes: 2.002.001.00 2.002.00 1.00 2.00.3.00 1.00 1.00.3.00 1.00. Final Sat.: 3294 3396 1519 3294 3396 1519 3294 4880 1519 16984880 1519 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______--------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.09 0.22 0.10 0.13 0.29 0.27 0.23 0.14 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** *.** .... Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.95 0.72 0.43 0.84 0.95 0.43 0.55 0.95 0.88 0.95 0.44 0.33 Uniform Del: 52.5 41.2 37.9 52.8 45.3 39.2 39.7 40.7 39.6 44.9 33.5 32.1 IneremntDel: 33.3 3.0 0.8 16.2 21.1 0.8 0.8 13.6 17.8 32.4 0.2. 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 85.8 44.2 38.7 69.0 66.4 40.0 40.5 54.3 57.4 77.3 33.7 32.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00 l.00 1.001.00 1.00 l.00 1.00. l.00 AdjDel/veh: 85.8 44.2 38.7 69.0 66.4 40.0 40.5 54.3 57.4 77.3 33.7 32.6 HCM2kAvg: 11 12 5 8 18 5 8 22 18 19 7 4 ..*.......**.........*.****.**..***....*.....*........***~~*****..~~*.****.**.*. . Traffix 7-.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA. . e e . ex +p.l am Thu OCt 21, 2004 14:51:08 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *********************~*****.*********************.***********t********~******.** Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd ********************.***********************.*********************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.488 .Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 17.3 Optimal .Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: B ***************~*************************************.************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include . Include In~lude. Mine Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0.2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 _._____nn__I_____u__-n-n II n__n_________II_____n__n__n II nnn_n_n_n I volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 201 223 .70 26 251 191 194 330 117 114 555 51 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 l. 00 1. 00 l. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 201 223 70 26 251 191 194 330 117 114 555 51. User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1;001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 201 223 70 26 251 191 194 330 117 114 555 51 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 201 223 70 26 251 191 .194 330 117 114. 555 51 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 201 223 70 26 251 191 194 330 117 114 555 51 ------------1--"------------11---------------1 1----------"----1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.56 0.95 0.85 0.58 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 i.oo 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 10553610 1615 10983610 1615 18053610 1615 180536101615 --------c---I---------------II---c-----------I 1----------_____1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.15 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.22 0.36 0.36 0.18 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.490.16 0.11 0.060.18 0.30 0.490.26 0.20 0.350.49 .0.10 Uniform Del: 27.6 23.8 23.3 22.9 24.0 25.3 40.9 27.3 26.8 43.2 33.3 29.1 IncremntDel: 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 Init~euDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.-00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 28.5 23.8 23.4 22.9 24.0 25.6 41.8 27.4 27.0 43.9 33.6 29.2 User DeLAdj: 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 AdjDel/Veh: 16.4 13.7 13.5 13.2 13.8 14.7 24.1 15.8 15.5 25.3 19.4 16.8 HGM2kAvg: 10 3 2 1 3 5 7 4 3 4 . 8 1 ***************************~**************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLGI. SAN DIEGOi CA . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------.---- - - -- -.. - -- -'- - - ---- - - - - - - ---- --- -- -- - - - -- - - -- - - ------ - - - --- -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - --- - -- Wed Nav 3, 2004 -17:04:17 Page. 9-1 . ex +pl pm Level Of Service Computation Report 2000. HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *********************************..********************************************* Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd ************************************************************************.******* Cycle (see): 120 Critical vol./Cap. (xl: 0.805 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 36.4 Optimal Cycle: 73 Level Of Service: D *.*********************************~**.*****.*********************************** Approach: North Bound south Bound East BOWld West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R lo T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: . Permitted Permitted Protected . Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 .20 20 loanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ____-~-----~I---------------II-----------~---I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 165 189 85 79 266 137 372 657 165 85 352 41 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Initial Sse: 165 189 85 79 266 137 372 657 165 85 352 41 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHI' Adj: 1.001.00 1,00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 165 189 85 79 266 137 312 657 165 85 352 41 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 165 189 85 79 266 137 372 657 165 85 352 41 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj:. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 165 189 85 79 266 137 372 657 165 85 352 41 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturati9n Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.33 0.60 0.54 0.38 0.60 0.54 0.60 0.60 0.54 0.60 0.60 0.54 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 6282274 1017 7162274 1017 1137 2274 1017 11372274 1017 ____________I__u___________II_______________11 _______________11_______________1 capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.33 0.29 0.16 0.07 0.15 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0~41 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.19 0.19 volume/Cap: 0.80 0.25 0.26 0.34 0.36 0.41 0.80 0.62 0.35 0.56 0.80 0.21 Uniform Del: 36.9 29.7 29.7 30.6 30.8 31.5 31.4 24.2 20.5 48.6 46.3 40.8 IneremntDel, 20.2 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.8 9.9 1.2 0.4 4.5 10.4 0.5 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj, 1.001.00 .1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 57.2 29.9 30.1 31.5 31.1 32.3 41.3 25.3 21.0 53.2 56.7 41.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.2 29.9 30.1 31.5 31.1 32.3 41.3 25.3 21.0 53.2 56_7 41.3 H~lcl\.vg: 13 3 2 4 4 4 15 10 4 4 8 1 **********************************************************.***...*************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling AssOC. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO,.CA . e " ~ . ex +pl am Thu Oct 21, 200414:51:08 Page 1.1-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HQJ.I Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) **.*.*******************************-******************************************** Intersection #11 Margarita Rd/De Portola Rd. . ******************************************************************************~* cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.345 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.9 Optimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound "Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R n--n-h---ln-nn-n---"-llnn__u__n___II______hn-h--lln-nn~nnn_1 Control: Protected Protected Protec~ed Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20. 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ___n____n_ln_____________II____nnn_n__II_____n______nll___________n__1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 109 499 49 60 571 39 37 59 70 65 136 77 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 109 499 49 60 571 39 37 59 70 65 136 77 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 109 499 49 60 571 39 37 59 70 65 136 77 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 109 499 49 60 571 39 37 59 70 65 136 77 PCE Adj: 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final yol.: 109 499 49 60 571 39 37 59 70 65 136 77 _________"n 1____h___h__"_II____________n_ll_n____n______lln___nn____n I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane; 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.87 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3345 228 1805 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 __nn____n l_n___n_______II_______n___n_II____n____n___II_____n___n___1 Capacity Analysis Module: . Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.17 0.17. 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.21 0.47 0.47 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.18 0.39 VOlume/Cap: 0.36 0.33 0.07 0.16 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.19 0.26 0.36 0.21 0.12 uniform Del: 44.4 23.2 20.6 38.6 20.4 20.4' 50.9 43.0 43.6 50.5 42.2 23.6 IneremntDel: 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.1 IDitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 45.2 23.3. 20.6 38.8 20.6 20.6 51.6 43.3 44.1 51.8 42.4 23.6 User DelAdj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.800.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 AdjDel/veh: 35.9 18.5 16.4 30.8 16.3 16.3 41.134.4 35.0 41.2 33.7 18.8 HQ12kAvg: 4 6 1 2 7 7 2 2 2 3 2 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA I ! . ------------------------.------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------~------------------------------ Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:04:17 page 11-1 e ex +p1 pm i I I Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ~*.*.*************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Margarita Rd/De portela Rd *************************************************************************~****** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.516. Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 29.7 Optimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service: C *******************************************************************.*********~*. Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1---------------1 1---------------II-----------~---II--------------cl Control: protected Protected protected protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 2.0 20 Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ---------.---1---- _________ull- ___u~--------II--------- ______II-----~-----u--1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 109 BH 96 75 706 20 86 219 252 45 60 45 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 109 874 96 75 706 20 86 219 252 45 60 45 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00. 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 109 874 96 75 706 20 86 219 252 45 60 45 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 109 874 96 75 706 20 86 219 252 45 60 45 PCB Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 109 874 96 75 706 20 86 219 252 45 60 45 _ ______nu_l_u __ __________11---- n_____ ____II----------u---II-----------~---1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 18053497. 99 1805 1900 1615 18053610 1615 ____________1_ ____n________II---n----------II- --- -----------11------------ ---I capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.24 0.06 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.150.45 0.45 0.080.37 0.37 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.08.0.25 0.33 VOlume/Cap: 0.39 0.54 0.13 0.50 0.54 0.54 0.39 0.40 0.54 0.30 0.07 0.08 Uniform Del: 45.6 24.3 19.6 52.629.4 29.4 48.4 34.4 36.1 51.7 34.6 27.7 IneremntDel: 0.9 0.4 0.1 2.6 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.5 1.3 1.1 0.0 0.1 InitQueuDel: -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 46.5 24.7 19.7 55.2 29.8 29.8 49.5 34.9 37.4 52.8 34.6 27.7 User DelAdj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 AdjDel/Veh: 44.0 23.3 18.6 52.2 28.2 28.2 46.8 33.0 35.4 49.9 32.7 26.2 HCM2kAvg, 4 12 2 3 11 11 3 7 8 2 1 1 ***********,.*******************************.************************************ e Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 DOWling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . i. . BACKGROUND WITHOUT PROJECT OPERATIONS , , , r I . OY w/o P AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Nov 3, 2004 12:50:38. Page 1-1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario: command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generatio~: Trip Distribution: Paths, Routes: Configuration: Scenario Report OY w/o P AM OY w/o P PM .OY w/o P AM OY w/o P AM Default Impact Fee Default ~ip Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths Default Routes Default configuration . Traffix 7.7.0715 (e) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG' SAN DIEGO, CA . - , . OY w/o P PM Ned Nov 3, 2004 12:50:52 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1-1 ----------~--------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario: Command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Scenario Report OY w/o P PM OY w/ P PM OY w/o P PM OY w/o PAM. Default Impact Fee Default Trip Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths Default Routes Default Configuration Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIGB - OY w/o. P -AM Wed Rov 3, 2004 12:52:01 page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------~----------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 SR 79/1-15 SB Ramp. ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./cap. (X): l.126 LosS Time (see): 9 (Y+.R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 100.6 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: LT. R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 COntrol: split Phase Split Phase protected protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume'Module: am peak Base vol: 0 0 0 1359 0 .298 0 381 309 1462. 352 0 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1359 0 298 0 381 309 1462 352 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.oo 1.00 PHF Volume: O. 0 0 1359 0 0 0 381 309 1462 352 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1359 0 0 0 381 309 1462. 352 0 PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00. 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 1359 0 0 0 381 309 1462 352 0 ____________1_______________11_______________11______.---------1 I-----c---------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.97 0.97 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.10 0.90 2.00 1.00 0.00 Fina1 Sat.: 0 0 0 3397 0 1843 0 1804 1463 3397 1843 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.43 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **~* **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.360.00 0.00 0..00 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.57 0..00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.34 0.00 uniform Del: .0.0 0.0 0.0 38.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.7 48.7 37.1 13.7 0.0 IneremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.3 76.3 67.2 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0106.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 125125.0104.313.9 0.0 User DeLAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh, 0.0 0.0 0.0 106.6 0:0 0.0 0.0 125 125.0 104.3 13.9 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 21 21 42 7 0 **********************************~********************************************* . I Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO; CA . e " , , , i . MITIG8 - OY w/o P PM Wed Nov 3, 2004 12:52:09 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 SR 79/1-15 SB Ramps ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critieal'Vol./cap. (X), 1.214 Loss Time {sec}: 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay {sec/veh}: 126.1 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F *******************************************************************************~ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West" Bound Movement: L T R L" T R L T R L T R ----------- -1---------------11_______________11________ _______11_______________1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 ' 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 ------------I~--------------I 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 0, 0 0 1759 0 275 0 893 326 823 835 0 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1759 0 275 0 893 326 823 835 0 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00' PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1759 0 0 0 893 326 823 835 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1759 0 0 0 893 326 823 835 0 PCEAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 1759 0 0 0 893 326 823 835 0 ------'-----_1_______________11_______________11_______________11_______________1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.97 0_97 0.97 0.88 0.88 0.89 0_97 0_97 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 l.47 0.53 2.00 l.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3397 0 1843 0 2463 899 3397 1843 0 -___________1_______________ 11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0'00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.24 0.45 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.50 0.00 VOlume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.21 1.21 1.21 0.91 0.00 Uniform Del, 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.1 42.1 48.0 27.6 0.0 IneremntDel, 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 105 105.5 109.5 12.8 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj, 0.000.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 137.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 148 147.6 157.5 40.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.001_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.qo AdjDeljVeh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 137.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 148 147.6 157.540.4 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 38 38 28 32 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA OY w/o P AM Ned May 5, i004 13:37:44 page 4-1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation Report 2000 Hot Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *****************************************...****.*.......*.****..****.....***... Intersection #2 SR79/I-15 NB Ramps ...***......**..*******.....**....***....****..**.***.......***...***..***.**.** Cycle (see), 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): l.291 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (secfveh): 115.5 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ..***...*******~**.*.***..*******..*.********..*...*.*.........***...****....... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound .West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R C___________I_______________II________C ------11- --------------11------- - -------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 20 20 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 149 2 804 0 0 0 416 1324 0 0 1631 1856 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Ini6al Bse: 149 2 804 0 0 0 416 1324 0 0 1631 1856 User Adj: ~.OO 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 149 2 804 0 0 0 416 1324 0 0 1631 1856 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol:. 149 2 804 0 0 . 0 416 1324 0 0 1631 1856. PCE Adj'. 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00:,. MLF Adj:.. .<1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 LOa;]! Final Vol.: '149 2 804 0 0 0 416 1324 0 0 1631 1856 ".;: u__ __.___---I--~----- ___n __11------- ------~-II---------------II----- -- --------1 . . Saturation Flow. Module: ' ):- . Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 Lanes, 0.99 0.01 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 1260 1.? 2554 0 0 0 1671 3343 0 0 2946 2946 ---- ________1_ --------------11-- -------------11---------- -----11----- -- --------1 CaPacity Analysis Module.: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.12 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.63 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 VOlume/Cap: 0.48 0.48 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.58 0.00 0.00 1.13 1.29 uniform Del: 38.9 38.9 45.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.4 10.1 0.0 0.0 30.7 30.7 IneremntDel: 0.2 0.2 140.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 152.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 64.9 133.6 Delay Adj: l.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.001.00 0..00 0.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.139.1186.1 0.0 0.0 0.0200.510.5 0.0 0.095.7164.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 39.1 39.1 186.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 95.7 164.4 DesignQueue: B 0 43 . 0 .0 0 24 31 0 0 63 73 *............ * * *... ** *... *.... * * *... * *.* *......... * * * *...... *............ **... ** ** * * * **. ......... * *.. * *... *...... *....... * *....* * *...... . Traffix- 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . e . . MITIG8 - Oy w/o P P.M Wed Nov 3, 2004 12,53:47. Page 1-1 ------------------------~------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level..Of- Seryice Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): l.207 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay Csec/veh}: 75.8 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E ***************************.*.**********.*.************************************* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0.3 0 1 ----~------"I---------------II---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 17 15 21 345 19 50 164 4529 50 12 2801 205 ~rowth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 17 is 21 345 19 50 164 4529 50 12 2801 205 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PlIF Adj: l.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. l.00 1.001.00 1.00 PlIF.Volume: 17 15 21 345 19 50 164 4529 50 12 2801 205 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 17 15 21 345 19 50 164 4529 50 12 2801 205 PeE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 17 15 21 345 19 50 1644529 50 122801 205 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1------------"--11---------------1 Sat~ration Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.93 0.98 0.73 0.93 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 0.42 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.003.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 623 873 1769 1862 1393 17695083 1583 17695083 1583 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.89 0.03 0.01 0.55 0.13 Crit Moves': **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.74 0.74 0;01 0.64 0.64 VOlume/Cap: 0.48 1.21 1.21 1.21 0.06 0.22 0.87 1.21 0.04 1.21 0.87 0.20 Uniform Del: 58.258.8 58.8 50.3 42.6 43.8 52.7 15.7 4.3 59.7 17.7 9.1 IneremntDel: 10.0 234 233.7 121.5 0.1 0.5 31.6 96.0 0.0 363.8 2.7 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 De1ay/Veh: 68.2 282292.5171.842.7 44.3 84.3 112 4.3423.520.4 9.2 User DelAdj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 AdjDel/Veh: 64.6 277277.0162.740.4 41.9 79.9 106 4.0401.019.3 8.7 HClqkAvg: 1 4 4 24 1 2 9 88 0 2 30 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/o P AM wed Nov 3, 2004 12:55:30 Page 1-1 e ____________________________~_________________________v________________________w -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******"************************************************************************** Intersection #5 SR 7~/Pala Road ................ * -.t... *.*.. **.......... ** *-* ***.......... **...... *.... **.......*.......... ** **...... **...... **.... ***.............. Cycle (see) : 120 Critical Vol./cap. (X): 0.953 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 40.6 Optimal Cycle: 157 Level Of Service: D *********************.******************************************..************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R __n_nn___I_'n__n______nlln___n___n___II---n-nn---__ II-n--n--n--n I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights:. OVl Include ovl Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3, 0 0 n_n_____n 1--n---~n-----II-nn-------n-11 n__n__n___n 11--n---n---n-1 volume Module: am peak , Base Vol: 1358 0 290 0 0 0 0 1511 994 270 2235 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~.OO 1.00 Initial Bse: 1358 0 290 0 0 0 0 1511 994 270 2235 0 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1358 0, 247 0 0 0 0 1511 994 270 2235 0 Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1358 0 247 0 0 0 0 1511 994 270 2235 0 PCE Adj: l. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'.00 Final Vol.: 1358 0 247 0 0 0 0 1511 994 270 2235 0 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900' 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0;95 0.81 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.79 0.88 0.85 0.95 Lanes, 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3327 0 1534 0 0 0 0 4829 1504 1680 4829 0 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat: 0.41 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.66 0.16 0.46 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.43 Volume/cap, 0.95 Uniform Del: 33.1 IncremntDel:.14.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 Delay/Veh: 47.4 User'DelAdj: 1.00 ,AdjDe1/Veh, 47.4 HCM2kAvg: 31 o . **** **** "******************************************************************************** 0.00' 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 o 0.60 0.27 11.6 0.2 0.0 1.00 11.8 l.00 1.1.8 4 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 o 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 o 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 l.00 0.0 o 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 o 0.33' 0.95 39.4 13.2 0.0 1.00 52.6 1.00 52.6 23 0.76 0.87 10.5 7.7 0.0 1.00 18.2 1.00 18.2 29 0.17 0.50 0.95 0.93 49.4 28.3 40'.8 7.4 0.00.0 1.00 1.00 90.2 35.6 1.00 1.00 90.2 35.6 15 30 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 ' ,0 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LUG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . , . OY w/op PM. Wed May 5, 200413:40.:10 page 6-1 .Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 SR 79/Pala Road *****************************************************.************************** Cycle (see): 120 .Critical VOl./Cap. (X): 1.660 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R. 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 144.5 Optimal Cycle: 180 . . . LeVel Of Service: F ***********...**************************************************.*************~* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L. T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase. Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 ----"-------I---------------II-c-------------II---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 1435 0 669 0 0 0 0 2669 1929 411 1579 0 Growth Adj: 1.001..00 1.00 1.001..00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1435 0 669 0 0 0 0 2669 1929 411 1579 0 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF,.Adj: .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHFVolume: 1435 0 569 0 0 0 02669 1929 4111579 0 Reduet vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: '1435 0 569 0 0 0 0 2669 1929 411 1579 o. PCE AdJ' ... .1..001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 l.00 1.00.1.00 1.00._ MLF Adj i';. .,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00';: Final 'Vol. i' .'1435 0 569 0 0 0 0 2669 1929 411 1579 0.' (,. , ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation " F19w Module: " '. Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 i900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.901.00 0.83 1.001.00 1.00 1.000.84" 0.79 0.880.84 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3432 0 1583 0 0 0 0 4803 1495 16714803 0 ------------1---------------11---.-----------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.42 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 1.29 0.25 0.33 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle, 0.25 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.78 0.15 0.67 0.00 Volume/Cap: 1.66 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 1.66 1.66 0.49 0.00 Uniform Del: 44.9 0.0 33.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 13.4 51.1 9.5 0.0 IneremntDel:302.3 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.035.8301.0314.4 0.1 0..0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 1.001.QO 0.00 Delay/Veh: 347.2 0.0 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.3 314.4 365.5 9.7 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.850.85 0.85 0.850.85 0.85 0.850.85 0.85 0.850.85 0.85 AdjDel/Veh: 293.4 .0.0 41.7 0;0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 54.3 265.6 308.9 8.2 0.0 DesignQueue: 79 0 25 0 0 0 0 96 39 25 37 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG1 SAN DIEGO, CA QY w/o P AM ----------------------------------------~--------------------------------------- Wed May 5, 2004 13:37:44 Page 7-1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , \. Level Of- Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *****************.*******~******~********.***********.****************~********* Intersection #7 SR 79/Avenida De Missiones **..... ***** * **.... _*". ***........... * ***'**...... ** ***..".. '!<*.......,.......".... :It.. *.............. **.*:.*........*................ Cycle (see): 120 Critical,' vol./cap. (X): 0.622 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 3.8 Optimal Cycle: 52 Level Of Service: A *.****************************************************~**************.*.******** Approach: North Bound South Bound East BOund .West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 control: protected protected protected Protected Rights: Include Inclu<Le Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------II~----~---------I Volume Module: Base'Vol: 46 0 7 0 1 1 5 1709 23 3 2751 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: .46 0 7 0 1 1 5 1709 23 3 2751 .0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF;Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00.1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001:00 1.00 PHFvolume: 46 0 7 0 1 1 5 1709 23 3 2751 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 0 7 0 1 1 5 1709 23 3 2751 0 PCB Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00, MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00.\; Final Vol.: 46 0 7 .0. 1 1 5 1709 23 3 2751 I> ________n__I_________u__~_ U _____u____null_~n n_O.__.n___II_ ________u____1 Saturation Flow Module: sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 19001900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes, 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.00' l.00 l.00 3.00 1.00 ~inal Sat.: 1805 0 1615 1900 879 879 1805 5187 1615 18055187 1900 _______u ___I____________u_II__ ___u_____ u_ll_ u___ _______ull_____________ --I Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.01 0.00 0.53 0.00 Crit Moves': **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.39 0.02 0.39 0.62 0.00 Uniform Del, 56.6 0:0 55.2 0.0 59.8 59.8 59.6 1.9 1.3 59.6 2.8 0.0 IneremntDel: 15.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 184 183.8 97.3 0.1 0.0 29.0 0.3 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0,001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh, 71.9 0.0 55.9 0.0 244 243.6 156.9 2.0 1.3 88.6 3.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 71.9 0.0 55.9 0.0 244243.6156.9 2.0 1.3 88.6 3.0 0.0 Des.\gnQueue: 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 ,0 31 0 *****************************************************************************.*** . ! I Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling ASsoc. Licensed to LUG' SAN DIEGO, CA . e .' . Oy w/o P .PM Wed May 5, 2004 13:40,10 Page 7"1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume A1ternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 SR 79/Avenida De Missiones *********************************************************************~********** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.771 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Avera'ge Delay (sec/veh): 4.3 Optimal Cycle-; 74 Level Of Service: A '* ** '* '* ** * * '* * ."**** ** * '* * * *'*' * '* * * '* * '* * * ** * '* * ** ** * * ** ** * * * '* * '* * '* '* * * '* '* * ** *... *.. ... **...... *** * * . Approach: North Bound South Bound. East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R __n______n I-.---n-n-n---I1___Cn.__nC_n_1I n_____nnnn II-n-n-n-.nn-1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Incl.ude Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------,-----1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 0 7 0 0 0 0 3457 71 3 2080 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 0 7 0 0 0 0 3457 71 3 2080 0 User Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. DO 1. 00 1. 00 1. DO 1. 00 PHFAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 0 7 0 0 0 .0 3457 71 3 2080 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 46 0 7 0 0 0 0 3457.. 71 3 2080 0 PCE Adj: .,._ 1. 00, 1. 00 1. DO l. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00. 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 MLF Adj: ';~. ]'.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 l.00 Final Vol. ,: .., .46' 0 7 0 0 0 0 3457. 71. 3 2080 0 ------------1---------------11---------------1 I-----------n--I 1 ____n______n_1 Saturation --Flow Module: . Sat/Lane, 19001900 1900 19001900 1900 19001900.1900 19001900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 0 1615 1900 1900 0 1900 5187 1615 18055187 1900 ____________1 nn______u___II_n___n___nn 11_______n______II_____~_________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0..00 0.67 0.04 0.00 0.40 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00.0.87 0.00 Volume/cap: 0.77 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.05 0.77 0.46 0.00 Uniform Del: 57.6 0.0 56.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.1 59-.8 1.8 0.0 IncremntDel: 45.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 272.6. 0.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 102.6 0.0 57.5 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.2 332.5 l.8 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 102.6 0.0 57.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.2 332.5 1.8 0.0 DesignQueue:. 3 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 37 1 0.20 0 *******************************************************************************~ Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA - MITIG8 - OY w/o P AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wed Nov 3, 2004 :12:56:07 Page 1-1.. e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level 'Of service computation Report 2000 HCM operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Interse<?tion #B. s_~ 79/Redhawk Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see), 120 critical Vol./cap. (X): 0.939 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay {sec/veh}: S2.4 Optimal Cycle: .148 Level Of Service: 0 ****************************************~***************************************. Approach: North Bound South .Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____~_______I_______________II_______________II_______--------1 I-~~-----~------I control: protected Protected Protected Protected. Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes, 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________1 1_________>_____11_______________11_______________1 Volume Module: am peak Base vol: 629 548 233 168 505 340 428 1159 304 328 1640 15B Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse, 629 548 233 168 505 340 428 1159 304 328 1640 158 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 629 54B 19B 168 505 340 428 1159 304 328 1640 158 Reduet vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 629 54B 198 168 505 340 428 1159 304 328 1640 158 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00.1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 629 54B 198 168 505 340 428 1159 304 328 1640 158 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.83 0,90 0.B9 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.B3 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3432 3538 1583 3432 353B 1583 343250B3 15B3 1769 5083 1583 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.21 0.12 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.32 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.34 0.34 Volume/cap: 0.94 0.51 0;41 0,40 0.62 0'94 0.94 0.87 0.73 0.87 0.94 0.29 uniform Del: 47.6 34.5 33.3 48.7 41.6 45.5 51.6 42.3 40.4 45.6 38.2 2B.7 Ineremntoel: 21.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.5 32.0 27.5 6.3 6.5 18.8 10;4 0.3 InitQueUDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 68.8 34.9 33.9 49.4 43.2 77.5 79.1 48.6 46.9 64.4 48.6 29.0. User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 68.8 34.9 33.9 49.4 43.2 77.5 79.1 48.6 46.9 64.4 48.6 29.0 HCM2kAvg: 16 9 6 3 9 16 12 16 12 15 24 4 ******************************************************************************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (el 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DI~GO, CA . .. - I , i. . OY w/o P PM Wed May 5, 2004 13:40:10 Page B-1 .. . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .. . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HaM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) **********************************************~*******************.************** Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk Parkway *********************************************************************.********** Cycle (see), 120 Critical. Vol./Cap. (X): l.3.63 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 150.3 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of SerVice: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: LT. R L T R L T R L T R ________----1---------------11------------ ___11_______________11_______________1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 .. Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 625 701 264 182 892 509 638 1939 653 478 1216 196 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 625 701 264 182 892 509 638 1939 653 478 1216 196 User Adj: 1.001.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.00.1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 625 701 224 182 892 509 638 1939 653 47B 1216 196 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 625. 701 224 182 B92 509 638 1939 653 478 1216 196 PCB Adj, 1.00....1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ., MLF Adj: 1.01l'.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 . Final Vol.: 62S 701 224 182 B92 509 638 1939 653 478 1216 196 --- _-.-- -----I--~------------II---- --- -----.---11- --------------11--- ------------1 Saturation Flow. Module:' Sat/Lane: 19001900 1900 19001900 1900 19001900 1900.19001900 1900 Adjustment, 0.90 0.93 0.B3 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.8B 0.84 0.79 0.88 0.B4 0.79' Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat., 34323538 1583 34323538 1583 16714803.1495 16714B03 1495 _ ___________1------ ------- --11-------------- -11---------------11- -----~--------I capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: O.lB 0.20 0.14 0.05 0.25 0.32 0.38 0.40 0.44 0.29 0.25 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.26 0.26. 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.21 0.21 0.21 Volume/cap: 1.360.75 0.54 0.501.07 1.36 1.20 1.26 1.36 1.361.20 0.62 Uniform. Del , 52.0 40.5 37.9 50.7 45.B 45.8 40.9 40.8 40.B 47.4 47.3 42.9 IneremntDel:176.B .3.4 l.4 l.l 51.0 179.6 105.9 122 176.2 lBO.6 .98.4 3.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 228.8 44.0 39.3 51.8 96.9 225.5 146.8 163 217.0 22B.0 146 46.7 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 228.8 44.0 39.3 51.8 96.9 225.5 146.8 163 217.0 22B.0 146 46.7 DesignQUeue: 38 36 11 11 48 28 32 97 33 ~7 68 11 ******************************************************************************** ,-:. Traffix 7~5.0715 (e) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG1 SAN DIEGO. CA MITIG8 ~ OY w/o PAM Wed Nov 3, 2004 12:58:19 page 1-1 e , ._--------------------------------------------~---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) *****.*****************.*******************************.****...**.*****~******** Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd ********************************************."****************.****************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./eap. (X): 1.001 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 50.2 Optimal Cycle, 180 Level Of Service: D *************************************************************************...*.*. Approach: Ilorth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L .T R ____________1_______________11_______________ 11_______________11 _______________1. Control: Permitted permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include. Include Include Include Min. Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 2010 20 20. Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ____________1_______________11_______________\ I---c-----------I 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 555 297 101 62 330 284 262 456 322 74 756 76 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.0n 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 555 297 .101 62 330 284 262 456 322 74 756 76 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.~0 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OQ PHF Volume: 555 297 101 62 330 284 262 456 322 74 756 76 Reduet Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 555 297 101 62 330 284 262 456 322 74 756 76 PeE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 555 297 101 62 330 284 262 456 322 74 756. 76 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11_______________1 Saturation Flow Module: . Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.52 0.93 0.83 0.54 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 984 3541.. 1.584 1023 3541 1584 1771 3541 1584 177-1 3541. 1.584 _.____.___ __1______ ---------11------- --------11-------------- -11------------ ---I capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.56 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.18 0.15 0.13 0~20 0.04 0.21 0.05 crit Maves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.56 Volume/Cap' 1.00 uniform Del: 2b.2 IncremntDel: 38.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 Delay/Veh: 64.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 AdjDel/Veh' 64.5 HCM2kAvg: 47 e **** **** ******************************************************************************** 0.56 0.15 12.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 12.5 1.00 12.5 3 0.56 0.11 12.2 0.1 0.0 1.00 12.3 1.00 12.3- 2 0.56 0.56 0.11 0.17 12.2 12.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 12.2 12.6 1.00 1.00 12,2 12.6 2. 3 0.56 0.32 13.9 0.2 0.0 1.00 14.1 l.00 14.1 5 0.15 1.00 51.1 55.7 0.0 1.00 106.9 1.00 106.9 15 0.26 0.50 38.1 0.4 0.0 1.00 38.5 l.00 38.5 7 0.26 0.79 41.7 10.3 0.0 1.00 51.9 l.00 51.9 13 0..11 0.40 50.2 1.4 0.0 1.00 51.6 l.00 51.6 3 0;21 1.00. 47.2 32.9 0.0 1.00 80.1 1.00 80.1 19 0.21 0.22. 39.0 0.3 0.0 1.00 39.3 1.00. 39.3 2 Traffix 7.7.0715 (cl 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIBGO, CA . e i . . OY w/o P PM Wed May 5, 2004 13.:40;10 Page 9.-1 ___________________________4__________________________-------------------------- . . '. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Level Of Service computation'Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) **.. * ** *... ***.... **** '* '* **-*** *** ** *** * * * ** .*. ** * ** *** * * *... * * * *... **... *..... * **... **...... ** ** * *** * Interseetion.#9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical vol./Cap. (Xl:. 0.853 Loss Time (see): 12 "(Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay {sec/veh}: 35.8 Optimal Cycle: 98 Level Of Service: D . *******************************************************************************. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound. Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1--- ____________11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min.. Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 2~ 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 -----------~I-----"---------II---------------II---------------II--~--:---------I Volume Module: Base Vol, 322 353 148 183 272 203 484 902 497 117 540 87 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 322 353 148 183 272 203 484 902 497 117 540 87 User Adj, 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.001.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 322 353 148 183 272 203 484 902 497 117 540 87 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 322 353 148 183 272 203 484 902 497 117 540 87 .PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00. MLF Adj, 1.00 1~00.' 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 322 353 148 183 272 203 484 902 497 117 540 .87 ------------1--------------"11---------------11--------------~II---------------I Saturation Flow Module :-<..:" -' ~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.54 0.93 0.83 0.47 0.93 0.83 0.88 0.8B 0.79 0.88 0.88 0.79 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat., 10173538 1583 8973538 1583 1671 3343 1495 16713343 1495 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.32 0.10 0.09 0.20 0.08 0.13 0.29 0.27 0.33 0.07 0.16 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle, 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.45 0.45 0.08 0.19 0.19 Volume/Cap: 0.85 0.27 0.25 0.55 0.21 0.35 0.85 0.61 0.75 0.84 0.85 0.31 Uniform Del, 34.7 26.3 26.2 29.8 25.7 27.2 36.9 25.3 27.6 54,2 47.0 41.9 IncremntDel: 16.9 0.1 0.2 1.9 0.1 0.4 11.9 0.7 4.6 34.210.9 0.6 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 51.6 26.5 26.4 31.7 25.8 27.6 48.8 26.0 32.3 88.4 57.9 42.5 User DelAdj: 0.94 0.94. 0.94 0.940.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94. 0.94 AdjDel IVeh, 48.5 24.9 24.8 29.8 24.2 25.9 45.9 24.4 30.3 83.1 54.4 39.9 DesignQueue: 14 15 6 8 12 9 23 36 20 7 30 .5 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0715" (c) 2002 Dowling ASBOC. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA --------~--------------------------_._------------------------------------------ OY w/o P AM Sat May 8, 2~04-09:26:13 Page 1-1 e --------------~----------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service computation Report 2000 HCM operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *******~************************************************************************ Intersection #11 Margarita Rd/De portola Rd * * ** * * * * *.. * ** * * * * *** * * * * *.. *** ** *** * ** ** **..* - -* * * -- - -.. - * * * * * ** * -* * - * --* ** * ** * * * * ** Cycle (see): -120 Critical Vol./cap. (X): 0;464 LOss Time (see): -12 (Y+R = .4 see) Average Delay (see/vehl: 24.1 Optimal CyCle: 72 - Level. Of Service: C **********************************************************-********************* i !- i Approach: North Bound south BOund East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ___u_______I_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1--------- - -----I Control: protected protected protected protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------a---------------II---------------II---------------11-----;---------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 95 720 65 62 B12 15 22 61 77 68"I41 BO Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 95 720 65 62 B12 15 22 61 77 68 141 80 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 95 720 65 62 812 15 - 22 61 77 68 141 BO User-Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 95 . 720 65 62 812 15 22 61 77 68 141 80 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Reduced Vol: 95 720 65. 62 812 15 22 61 77 68 141 80 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00- 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1COO MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00. 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00'- Final Vol.: 95 720 65 62 812 15 22 61 77 68 141 80 ------------1---------------1 I---------------II---------------II--~------------I Saturation F10w Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 0.44 0.56 1.00 0.64 0.36 Final Sat.: 18053610 1615 18053534 65 1805 769 971 lB051147 651 ________n__I___n_ __u_n __11_________ ______11__ -- -------- -- -II--c--- --- u----I Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat: 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.11 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.25 0.25 volume/Cap: 0.50 0.41 O.OB 0.41 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.50 0.50 Uniform Del: 50.6 19.8 16.5 52.2 22.5 22.5 51.0 39.6 39.6 49.3 38.7 38.7 IneremntDel: 2.0 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 52.6 20.0 16.6 54.0 22.7 22.7 51.5 40.2 40.2 50.4 39.6 39.6 User DelAdj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 AdjDel!Veh: 45.8 17.4 14.4 47.0 19.8 19.8 44.8 34.9 34.9 43.8 34.4 34.4 DesignQueue: 6 26 2 4 31 1 1 3 4 4 7 4 ******************************************************************************** . ! i r Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . e I , r . OY w/o P PM Wed May 5, 2004 13:40:10 Page 11-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------~-------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Margarita Rd/De Portela Rd * * '* '* '* *** * * * * * *** * * ** * '* *. * * * * * * * * * * * ** '* ** .*. *"* * * ** * * ** '* ***** * * * * * * * * **** * * * * * * ** * Cycle (see), 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.759 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 ~ec) Average Delay (secfveh): 29.3 Optimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service: C *****************.*****************~******************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T" R L T R L T R __----------I-n------------II------~--------II _______________11_______________1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Right"s: Include Include Include Include Min. Green, 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 ____________,In_u__________II_______________II_______________II_______________I Volume Module: Base Vol: 99 1190 139 78 991 5 33 228 269 47 62 47 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 'Loo 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 99 1190 139 78 991 5 33 228 269 47 62 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00' PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 99 1190 139 78 991 5 33 228 269 47 62 47 Reduct" Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 99 1190 139 78 991 5 33 228 269 47 62 47 PCB Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00. 1.00 l.00 1.00 LOO l.00 l.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 99 1190 139 78 99L '5 33 228 269 47 62 47 n_ _____ _ __ _1__ --- _nU _____11_ _______n_ ---- 1 I--n-----------II---u--------,--I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 0.46 0.54 1.00 0.57 0.43 Final Sat.: 18053610 1615 18053588 18 1805 801 945 1805 1010 766 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 Ic--------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.05 0.33 0.09 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.28 0.28 Volume/Cap, 0.66 0.84 0.22 0.52 0.70 0.70 0.13 0.84 0.84 0.31 0.22 0.22 Uniform Del: 53.3 32.9 24.1 52.7 30.5 30.5 45.1 36.6 36.6 51.8 32.9 32.9 IncremntDel: 10.2 4.6 0.2 3.2 1.6 1.6 0.2 10.2 10.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 63.637.5 24.3 55.932.1 32.1 45.346.7 46.7 53.033,.2 33.2 User DelAdj: 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.770.77 0.77 O~77 0.77 0.77 0.770.77 0.77 AdjDel/Veh: 48.928.9 18.7 43.024.7 24.7 34.9 36.0 36.0 40.8 25.5 25.5 DesignQueue: 6 S2 6 5 43 0 2 11 13 3 3 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA e BACKGROUND TRAFFIC WITH PHASE I CONDITIONS .I I , . . 4It . . OY w/Phase I AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fri May 7, 2004 09,10,33 Page 1-1 Scenario: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . Scenario Report OY w/Phase I AM command: Volume: Geometry : Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: ex am OY w/p AM (Imp) ex am Default Impact Fee Default Trip Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths D~fault Routes Default COnfiguration Traffix 7.5.0715 {c} 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA OY w/Phase 01 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fri May 7, 2004 09:28:13 page ,1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- scenario: command: Volume: Geometry: Impact "Fee: Trip. Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: configuration: scenario Report OY w/Phase I PM ex pm OY w/P PM (Imp) ex am Default Impact Fee Default Trip Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths Default Routes Default configuration . Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling AssOC. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . i e i- I , .. ! !. . OYw/Phase I AM Fri May 7, 2004.09:10:35 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ****************.**************.**************.********************************* Intersection #1 SR 79/I-15 sa Ramps *********************************************.****************************..**** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./cap. (Xl, 1.143 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) i\irerage Delay (see/veh): 106.8 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F *************~*************************************.****.**************..******* Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R -------- __u In _____u____ _-_11__________ -----11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Inclv.de Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0. 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 ____________1_______________11 --------------- 1 I----------u---I 1---------------1 "volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 1425 0 298 0 390 309 1478 355 0 -Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1425 0 298 0 390 309 1478 355 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -PHFAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1425 0 0 0 390 309 1478 355 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1425 0 0 0 390 309 1478 355 :0 _PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~.OO MLF-Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1-.001.00 -1.00 - Final Vol.: 0 0 0 1425 0 0 0 390 309 1478 355 -~o ------------I---------------II---------------fl---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Larie: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.90 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.98 0.98 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.12 0.88 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3432 0 1862 0 1844 1461 3432 1862 0 ___u_____u 1_______________11_______________11_______________11_______________1 Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.43 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.56 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 1.14 1.14 0.34- 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.9 48.9 37.4 14.2 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.8 82.8 74.1 0.2 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.000.00 0.00. 1.000.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 1.001..00 0.00 Delay/Veh, 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 132 131.7 111.5 14.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 132 131.7 111.5 14.4 0.0 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 22 1.8 68 11 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0715 (e) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA OY w/Phase I PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fri May 7, 2a04 09:28,15 Page 3-1. e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ! Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *************~**************************.*************************************** Intersection #1 SR 79/1-15 sa Ramps ***********~*****************.*********~****.****.*****.**.********.~*.*...**.*** Cycle (sed): 1.20 Critical vol./Cap. (X):. 1.230 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see). Average Delay (see/veh): 131. 9 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of service: F *********************************************************..***.**.********..~... Approach: North Bound South Bound East BOund West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1_______________11_______________11_______________1 COntrol: Split Phase Split phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 . Lanes: a 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1. 0 0 1. 1 a 2 o. 1 0 0 __"__n_____' 1____ n___n_n_II__Cn__ ___nn_II______n__ -----II n__ -----.------1 volume- Module: pm peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 1793 0 275 0 898 326 875 846 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 .1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1793 0 275 0 898 326 875 846 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001..00 0.00 1.001.00 l.00. 1.001.00 1.00 PHF .Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 PHF volume: 0 0 0 1793 0 0 0 898 326 875 846 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1793 0 0 0 898 326 875 846 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.0a 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1..00 1.001..00 0.00 1.001.00 1..00 1..001..00 .1.00 Final Vol., 0 0 0 1793 0 0 0 898 326 875846 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Larie, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 Adjustment: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.90 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.98 0.98 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.47 0.53 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3432 0 1862 0 2492 905 3432 1862 0 ------------1---------------11---------------1 !_______________II______c________\ Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.45 0.00 crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 a.oo 0.00 0.00 0.29 a.29 0.21. 0.50 0.00 Volume/Cap, o.oa 0.00 0.00 1..23 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 1.23 0.91 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.4 42.4 47.6 27.5 0.0 IneremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1.2 112.5 115.7 1.2.5 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1..00 1..00 1..00 o.oa Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 . a.a 144.3 0.0 a.o 0.0 155154.91.63.240.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.001..00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh, 0.0.0.0 0.0 144.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 155 154.9 163.2 40.0 .0.0 DesignQueue: 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 46 17 49 32 0 ********************-*****************************************************~***** . Traffix 7.5.0715 (c)-" 2002 ,?owling Assoc. Licensed to LLG~ SAN DIEGO, CA . . . . OY w/Phase I AM Mon May 10, 2004 09:16,39 Page 1-1 Level Of service computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ************************************************************.******************* Intersection #2 SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps ********************************************************************..****.***** Cycle (secl: 127 Critical Vol./Cap. (X), 1.832 Loss Time (sec'): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay '(sec/veh) : 127.l. Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F **********.****.*********.***~********.****.***.****.**********..*************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I---c-----------II---------------I Control; Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 . 0 0 20 20 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 --------"---.I----------n---II- ______________11___________ ----II _______________1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 149 2 849 . 0 0 0 416 1399 0 0 1650 1878 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . Initial Bse: 149 2 849 0 0 0 416 1399 0 0 1650 1878 Added Vol: 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 149 2 849 0 0 0 416 1399 . 0 0 1650 1878 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00. 1. 00 PHF Volume, 149 2 849 0 0 0 416 1399 0 0 1650 1878 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 149 2 849 0 0 0 416 1399 0 0 1650 1878 PCE Adj: 1.00'.1.0~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.oO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.90 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.": 149 2 849 0 0 0 416 1.399 0 0 1650 1.879 _____nn_n 1 _______________11 n_____________1 1_______________1 In-------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.00 1.00 O.9~ 0.85 Lanes: 0.99 0.01 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1357 18 2751 0 0 0 1805 5187 0 05187 1615 __c_________I_______________1 1_______________1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.32 1.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.170.17 0.17 0.000.00 0.00 0.13 0.76 0.00 0.000.63 0.63 VOlume/Cap, 0.65 0.65 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.83 Uniform Del: 49.3 49.3 52.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 23.2 IncremntDel: 1.0 1.0 381.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 391.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 378.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0;00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh, 50.3 50.3 434.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 446.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 401.3 User DelAdj: 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 AdjDel/Veh: 30.2 30.2 260.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 267.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 240.8 DesignQueue: 9 0 53 0 0 0 27 25 0 0 46 65 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.5.0715 '(c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OY w/Phase .IPM Mon May 10, 2004 09:17:37 page 1-1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***************************************************.****************************. ~ntersection #2 SR"79/I-15 NB Ramps *****************************************************************~************** Cycle (see): 127 Critical Vol./cap. (Xl: 1. 772 .Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = .4 see) Average Delay (see/vehl: 159.2 Optimal Cycle: - 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************~************* Approach: North Bound " . South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1. control: Split Phase Split Phase protected p~tected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 "0 10 20 0 0 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 _~n---n-__I-n----n_n---II--n----n-n--11 ~n_nnn__n_II----n-n--nn 1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 515 0 1831 0 0 0 263 2363 0 0.1305 1364 Growth Adj, LOO 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 515 0 1831 0 0 0 263 2383 0 .0 1305 1364 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 passerByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 515 0 1831 0 O. 0 263 2383 0 0 1305 1364 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 l.00 l.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 515 0 1831 0 00 263 2383 0 9 1305. 1364 Reduet Vol< i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5~5 0 1831 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 1305 13.84 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.~0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.:. 5i5 0 1831. 0 0 0 263 2383 0 O. 1305 1384 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation F10w Module: Sat/Lane: l~OO 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.951.00 0.75 1.00 l.00 .1.00 0.95 0.91 l.00 1.000.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat., 1805 0 2842 0 0 0 1805 5187 0 0 5187 1615 ____________1_______________1 I----------c----II---------------I 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.29 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.86 crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.46 VOlume/Cap: 0.79 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.52 1.77 Uniform Del: 36.0 0.0 40.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.322.2 0.0 0.022.6 32.8 IneremntDel, 6.2 0.0 351.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 373.51.8 0.0 0.0 0.2352.8 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 1.00 0.000.00 0..00 l.00 1.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 Delay/veh: 42.2 0.0 392.0 0.0 0.0 0..0 431.6 24.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 385.6 User DelAdj: 0.830.83 0.83 0.830.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0;830.63 0..B3 AdjDel/veh, 35.0 0.0 325.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 358.4 19.9 0.0 0.0 19.0 320.1 DesignQueue: 25 0 94 0 0 0 16 82 0 0 51 62 * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** *.* * ** * * * * * * *"** ** *... * * * '" *.;. * '" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * *.. * * '" * ** e Traff;j.x -7.5.0715 (e)- 2002 Dowling- Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . e ! , . MITIG8 - OY W/p AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 13,02:04 Page 1-1 ---------------~---------------------------------------------------------------- . -------------------------------------------------------------------~------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 am Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ********************************************************~*********~************* Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street **********************************************.*.******************************* Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.993 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.8 Optimal Cycle: 180. Level Of. Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control~ Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 .0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 __.__________1 _______________11_______________11_______________11_________------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 33 6 18 129 7 210 64 2441 15 7 3443 193 Growth Adj, 1.041.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 l.00 l.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 34 .6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 ____________1________ --- ----II _______________11_______________11______ ---------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.930.77 0.77 0.930.98 0.73 0.93 0.89 0.83 0..930.8-9 0.83" Lanes: 1.00 0.25 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1769 364 1091 1769 1862 1393 1769 5083 1583 1769 5083. 1583 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat, 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.16 0.04 0.50 0.01 0.00 0.70 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.020.02 0.02 0.160.16 0.16. 0.04 0.74 0.74 0.010.71 0.71 VOlume/Cap: 0.99 0.88 0.88 0.48 0.02 0.99 0.99 0.67 0.01 0..67 0.99 0.18 Uniform Del: 58.8 58.7 58.7 46.0 42.7 50.5 57.7 8.0 4.1 59.5 17.1 5.8 IneremntDel:150.0 117 116.9 1.3 0.0 58.5 107.2 0.5 0.0 101.3 13.3 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 ~.OO 1.00 1.0'0 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 208.8.176 175.6 47.3 42.7 108.9 165.0 8.5 ,4.1 160.8 30.4 5.9 User DelAdj: 0.990.99 0.99 0.990.99" 0.99 0.990.99 0.99 0:.990.99 0.99 AdjDel/Veh: 205.7 173 173.0 46.6 42.1 107.3 162.5 8.4 4.0 158.4 30.0 5.8 HCM2kAvg: 3 2 2 .5 0 12 5 17 0 1 51 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - QY w/P PM -----"--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Nov 3, 2004 13:03:06 page 1-1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) **************..**************************************************************** .Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street .. * *** *.. *.. **.....*............ ******.... **.......... ***.. * ** **.. '*....... * *.... **.......... * **...... **.. * ..* **.. ....... Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./cap. (X): l.193 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 76.0 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of' Service: E ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West. Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 control: Split phase Split phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 O. 3 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------\ 1---------------11---------------\ Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 122852 198 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: l. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 l. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Volume: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vol: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 PCB Adj: 1.001.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 17 15 21 334 19 50 1644442 50 122852 198 ------------\---------------11----.-----------11---------------11-------- - ------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.78 0.78 0.92 0.97 0.73 0.92 0.88 0.83 0.92 0.88 0.83 Lanes: l~OO 0.42 0.58 l~OO l~OO 1.0'0 1.003.00 1.00 l~OO 3~00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1753 618 865 1753 1845 1380 1753 5037 1568 1753 5037 1568 __________ --1---------------11---------------11- ----- --- ------11---------- -----I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.88 0.03 0.01 0.57 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.02 0.02 Volume/Cap' 0.48 1.19 1.19 uniform Del: 58.1 58.8 58~8 IneremntDel, 9.7 228 227.6 InitQueuDel: O~O 0.0 O~O Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/veh, 67.8 286 286.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 67~8 286 286~4 HCM2kAvg: 1 4 4 o . **** **** *****************~************************************************************** 0.16 0.16 1.19 0.06 50.4 42.8 116.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 166.9 42.9 1.00 1.00 166~9 42~9 23 1. 0.16 0.23 44~0 0.5 0.0 1.00 44.5 1.00 44.5 2 0.11 0.89 52.9 36.1 0.0 1.00 89.1 1.00 89.1 9 0.74 1.19 15.6 89.8 0.0 1.00 105 1.00 105 85 0.74 0.04 4.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 4.2 1.00 4.2 o .0.01 0.64 1.19 0.89 59.7 18.0 356.4 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 416.1 21.3 1. 00 1. 00 416.1 21.3 2 32 0.64 0.20 8.9 0.1 0.0 1.00 9.0 1.00 9.0 3 Traffix 7~7~0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc~ Licensed to LLG~ SAN DIEGO~ CA . , . I ,. !. -I . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 13:05:58 Page 1-1 . . . -------------------------------------------------.------------------------------ . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level' Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 SR 79/Pala Road ******************************************************************************** . Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X), 0.977 .Loss Time (see), 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 41.4 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service.: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound" East Bound West Bound Movement: L" T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: OVl Include Ovl Include Min. Green' 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1. 1 0 3 0 0 n__________I_______________II_______________II_______________ II------n-------I Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 1358 0 354 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Xnitial Bse: 1358 0 354 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1358 0 301 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1358 .0 301 0 0 0 0 1638 994 2932280 0 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1358 0 301 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 .-----------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 .1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 0.97 0.82 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.81 0.90 0.86 0.97 Lanes: 2.000.00 l..00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 l.00 l.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3393 0 1565 0 0 0 9 4926 1534 17144926 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.40 0.00 0.19 0;00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.65 0.17 0.46 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.41 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.75 0.17 0.52 0.00 Volume/cap: 0.98 0:00 0.33 0.00 0..00 0.000.00 0.98 0.86 0.98 0.90 0.00 Uniform Del: 34:9 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.1 10.7 49.3 26.2 0.0 IneremntDel: 18.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 7.0 45.5 4.7 -0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~.OO Delay/Veh: 53.7 0.0 13.0 0.0.0.0 0.0 0.0 55.9 17.6 94.831.0 0.0 User DelAdj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 53.7 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 55.9 17.6 94.831.0 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 32 0 6 0 0 0 0 25 29 16 29 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix.7.7.0715 {e}. 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ~ MITIG8 - OY w/p PM . .. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Nov 3,200413:06:07. .page 1-1 e f , i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Level Of service Computation Report 2000.HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *.******************************************************.****************~****** Intersection #5 SR 79/Pala Road ************************************************************.***.**~.*********** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 1. 666 Loss Time (sec): 9 {Y+R ~ 4 see} Average Delay (sec/veh): 194.6 Optimal Cycle: 160 Level Of Service: F *******...*******.*.***************************************.*.********.******.~** Approach: North BOWld South Bound East Bound West BOWld Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Split phase Split Phase protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min: Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 ______.______1_______________11 _______________11_______________11_______________1 volume Module: pm peak Base Vol, 1435 0 709 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 48~ 1730 0 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1435 0 709 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . PHF volume: 1435 0 603 0 O. .0 0 2747 1929 486 1730. 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1435 0 603 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 PCB Adj.: LOO 1.00 LOO 1;00 l.00 1.00 LOO LOO 1.00 LOO LOO LOO MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1435 0 603 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 466 1730 0 ____________1_______._______1 1_______________11_______________\ 1--"------------\ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.89 0.97 0.82 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.81 0.90 0.86 0.97 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3393 0 1565 0 0 0 04926 1534 17144926 0 ____ ________1_____ __________11_______________11_______ ________1 \ ----- ----------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.42 0.00 0,39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 1.26 0.26 0.35 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle, 0.21 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.79 0.13 Volume/Cap: 2.03 0.00 1.13. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.59 2.15 Uniform Del: 47.5 0.0 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 12.4 52.1 IneremntDe1:468.5 0.0 80.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 267.6 532.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0,0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 516.0 0.0 120.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 280.0 584.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 516.0 0.0 120.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 280.0 584.4 HCM2kAvg: . 75 0 34 0 0 0 0 37 156 53 o i i . I ! 0.72 0.49 7.4 0.1 0.0 LOO 7.5 l.00 7.5 9 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 o ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.-0715 {el 2004 DOwling Assoc. Licensed to LLG. SAN DIEGO, CA . e [ . I i . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 13:07,26 P~ge 1~1 ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume.~ternative) ***************************************************************.*****~'********* Intersection #7 SR 79/Avenida De Missiones ***********************************************************************~******** Cycle (see): 100 CritiealVol./Cap. (X): 0.649 Loss Time (see): "12 (Y+R =< 4 see) Average Delay (sec!veh): 3.9 Optimal Cycle: 53 Level Of Service: A ***********************************************************~***********,**~****** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1. Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 11 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I---------------II-------------c-I Volume Module: . Base Vol: 46 0 20 0 1 1 5 1900 23 8 2819 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 0 20 0 1. 1. 5 1.900 23 8 281.9 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 0 20 0 1. 1. 5 1.900 23 8 2819 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 0 20 0 1. 1 5 1900 23 8 281~ 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 46 0 20 0 1 1 5 1900 23 8 2819 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 19001900 1900 19001900 1900 19001900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.33 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1809 0 1615 1900 1172 2343. 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1900 ___u ____h_I___ ------ ______11____ - --________11___ --- ---------11-- -------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.01 0.00 0.54 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ***. .*'It* **** Green/Cycle, 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.83 0.83 0.01 0.84 0.00. VOlume/Cap: 0.65 0.0(JC.,~.32 0.000.65 0.32 0.650.44 0.02 0.44.0.650.00 Uniform Del: 47.4 0.0 46.7 0.0 49.9 49.9 49.9 2.3 1.5 49.2 2.9 0.0 Inere11UltDel: 19.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 212 28.2 114.8 0.1 0.0 16.2. 0.4 0.0 InitQueuDe1: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 66.6 0.0 49.6 0.0 262 78.1 164.6 2_4 1.5 65.5 3.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 AdjDel{Veh, 65.2 0.0 48.6 0.0 256 76.6 161.3 2.3 1.5 64.1 3.2 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 1. 11 0 **'It***.***.***.*******.*.*******..*.*.*.*......*.*.******~*******.************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (e) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/P PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Nov 3, 2004 13:06:50 Page 1-1 . - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -'- -- --- - - - -- - ---- --- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ***************************************~**********.***************************** Intersection #7 SR 79/Avenida De Missiones *****************************************************************************~** Cycle (see): 100 Critical vol./Cap. (X): 0.816 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.5 Optimal Cycle: 81 Level Of Service: A ****************************************************************************~*** Approach: NorthBound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. . 0 Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 11 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________1 1_______________11_______________11_______________1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 2306 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 2306 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 l.00. 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 2306 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vol: 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 2306 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Final Vol.: 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 2306 0 __________ __)____._____ ------11- --------------11----.----- ------11---- -----------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 l.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.91 ..0.85 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.~O 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1809 0 1615 1900 1900 ~900 3686 5187 1615 18055187 1900 __ __________1__ _____________11__ -- ------ _____11_______________ i 1- - ------"---- --I Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.04 0.01 0.44 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle, 0.02 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.82 0.00 Uniform Del: 48.6. 0.0 IneremntDel: 72.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 120.8 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.89 0.89 AdjDe1/veh: 107.5 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 3 0 o . **** **** *************************.*..**************************************************. 0.02 0.30 48.0 4.4 0.0 1.00 52.5 0.89 46.7 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.89 0.89 0.0 0.0 o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.89 0.0 o 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.89 0.0 o 0.84 0.82 3.9 1.3 0.0 1.00 5.1 0.89 4.6 21 0.84 0.05 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.3 0.89 1.1 o 0.01 0.82 49.3 109.7 0.0 1.{)O 159.0 0.89 141. 5 2 0.86 0.52 1.8 0.1 0.0 1.00 2..0 0.89 1.7 7 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.89 0.0 o Traffix 7~7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . ~ I . I . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM Wed Nov 3. 2004 13:09:19 Page 1-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HC>l Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** . Intersection #13 SR 79/Project n/w **********w*********~**************************************************_********* Cycle (see):. 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) :0.711 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = .4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 10.2 Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of. Service: B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound . West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11 _________.______1 Volume Module-: Base Vol: 50 13 50 86 5 55 204 1945 50 50 2684 181 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 13 50 86 5 55. 204 1945 50 50 2684 181 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 l.00 1;00 l.00 1.00.1.00 l.00 PHF Volume, 50 13 50 ~86 5 55 204 1945 50 50 2684. 181. Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 50 13 50 86 5 55 204 1945 50 50 2684 181 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj:. 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 50 13 50 86 5 55 2041945 50 502684 181 ____________1_______________11_______________ 11_______________11 _______________1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes, 1.00 0.21 0.79 2.00 0.08 0.92 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 345 1328 3502 136 1501 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------1---------------11---------------1 I----------c----II-------------c-I Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat, 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.37 0.03 0.03 0~52 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.75 0.75 0.06 0.73 0.73 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.69 0.69 0.690.71.0.71' 0.71 0.50 0.04 0.500.71 0.15 Uniform Del: 57.0 55.7 55.7 57.2 56.0 56.0 53.7 5.8 3.8 55.0 9.2 5.0 IncremntDel: 28.719.7 19.7 14.924.5 24.5 8.1 0.1 0.0 3.8.0.6 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0_0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 85.7 75.4 75.4 72.1 80.6 80.6 61.8 5.9 3.8 58.9 9.9 5.1 User DelAdj: 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 AdjDel/Veh, 62.6 55.1 55.1 52.6 58.8 58.8 45.1 4.3 2.7 43.0 7.2 3.7 HCM2kAvg, 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 9 0 3 19 2 ************************************************************************~******* Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/p PM -----------------------------------------------~-------------------------------- lied Nov 3, 2004 13.:09:48 page.1-1 e -----------------------------------~-------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Ope.rations Method. (Base Volume Alternative) *********************************************~********--*._**_.*_.*.._*-----*--- Intersection #13 SR 79/projeet Dill ..*.* *** ."W" * * * **' * -**' .** * *.. *. ** .-- * * * -*. * * * * ** '* * * *. * -.-. * * * * ** *.. * ** .*.* -. '* * * .". * * *. Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./caP. (X): 0.940 Loss Time (seeh 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 17.2 Optimal Cycle : 148 Level Of Service: B -..-.-.-....---.-.....-.----.-.--.--....----....-..-.--.-.-.---.---.----------.. 1q)proach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 COntrol: Protected protected Protected protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 i 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________11_______________1 I---------------II----c----------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 50 8 50 286 15. 181 126 34BO 50 50 2437 112 Growth Adj: 1.00 ~.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 8 50 2B6 15 181 126 34BO 50 50 2437 112 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00..1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 l.00 pHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~.OO PHF Volume: 50 8 50 286 15 181. 126 3480 50 50 2437 112 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 8 50 286 15 181 126 34BO 50 50 2437 112 pCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~.OO 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 50 8 50 286 lS 181 126 3480 50 50 2437 112 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 ~900 1900 .19001900 1900 ~900 1900 1900 19001900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.87 .0.87 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.92.0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes, ~.OO 0_14 0.86 2.00 0.08 0.92 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 228 1427 3502 125 1512 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------\ capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.67 0;03 0.03 0.47 0.07 crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.05 volume/caP' 0.94 0.74 uniform Del: 58.1 56-.5 IncremntDel:l01.0 31.8 InitQueuDel: O~O 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 159.2 88.2 User DelAdj: 0.710.71 AdjDel/Veh: 113.0 62.6 HCM2kAvg: 4 4 O. . **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** 0.05 0.74 56.5 31.8 0.0 1.00 8B.2 0.71 62.6 4 0.11 0.13 0.74 0.94 51.8 51.9 7.7 45.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 59.5 97.4 0.71 0.71 42.2 69.2 7 11 0.13 0.94 51.9 45.5 0.0. 1.00 97.4 0.71 69.2 11 0.05 0.68 55.8 9.9 0.0 1.00 65.7 0.71 46.6 4 0.71 0.94 14.9 5.7 0.0 1.00 20.6 0.71 14.6 42 0.71 0.04 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 5.1 0.71 3.6 1 0.03 0.94 58.1 101.0 0.0 1.00 159.2 0.71 113.0 4 0.69 0.68 10.9 0.5 0.0 1.00 11.4 0.71 8.1 18 0.69 0.10 6.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 6.2 0.71 4.4 ~ Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling AssoC. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . I e i i ~ . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM page 1-1- Wed Nov 3, 2004 13:16:56 . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ************~************************************************************~****** . Intersection #8 SR 79/Re~awk Parkway ****************************************************************************~*** Cycle (see): 120. Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.025 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (secfveh): 63.8 Optimal Cycle:. . 180 Level Of Service: E . ******************************************************************************** Approach: North BouIid. South Bound East Bound West Bound MoVement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ---"--------I---"-----------II--------~------II-- -------------II-----~---.------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include" Include Include" Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20. 20. Lanes: 2 0. 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------I---------------II--------c------II---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 693 567 233 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 Growth Adj' 1.00 1.0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 693 567 233". 168 505 391 432 1.211 334 328 1767 177 User Adj; 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.0.0 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.0.0. 1.00 1.001.00 1.0.0 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume, 693 567 198 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Reduced Vol: 693 567 198 168 505 . 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 693 567 198 168. 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 _____~---u-I-----.----------II------ _________11----- - _u__ ----11---------------1 Sat~ration Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 .1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190.0 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.83 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat., 3432 3538 1583 34323538 1583 34325083 1583 17695083 1583 ---------- --1---- -----------11------ ------- --11---------------11-- ------- --- - --I Capacity Analysis Module: . VOl/Sat: 0.20. 0.16 0.13 0:05 0.14 0.25 0.13 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.35 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.34 0.34 VOlume/cap: .1.02 0.51 0.40 0.39 0.59 1.02 1.02 0.92 0.81 0.92 1.02 0.33 Uniform Del: 48.2 33.7 32.4 48.3 40.3 45.5 52.6 43.2 41.7 46.9 39.7 29:5 IncremntDe1: 41.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.1 52.6 50.4 10.3 11.7 27.7 28.3 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0.. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0..0 0.0 0,0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1."001.00 J..OO Delay/Veh: 89.3 34.1 32.9 48.9 41.4 98.1 103.0 53.4 53.3 74.6 67.9 29~9 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 "1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 89.3 34.1 32.9 48.9 41.4 98.1 103.0 53.4 53.3 74.6 67.9 29.9 HCM2kAvg: 19 9 6 3 9 21 13 18 14 16 29 5 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO,"CA OY w/phase I PM , ' -----------------~-------------------------------------------------------------- Fri May 7, 2004 09:28:~5 Page 8-1. . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ********************************************************.*********~************* Intersection #9 SR 79/Redhawk Parkway *** '* '" * '* '* **.. '* '* * * ** ..*. **." **." ** '* '*."." *** '" ****.. *** *** * * * *-* '*.. * *. *. '" * **.* ****.**.".. '!'.... **.. Cycle (see): ~20 critical vol./cap. (X): 1.408 Loss Time (see):' 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 167.0 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F *************.******.********.*****************************.*.*****..**********. I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1-'--------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Control: protected protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 I---------------f volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 641 701 264 102 892 533 691 2020 688 478 1253 196 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse, 641 701 264 102 892 533 691 2020 688 478 1253 196 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 641 701 224 102 892 533 691 2020 688 478 1253 196 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 Reduced Vol: 641 701 224 102 892 533 691 2020 688 478 1253 196 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00, MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0,0,1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00, Final Vol.: 641 701 224 102 892 533 691',:2020',' 688 478 1253 196 ____________1_______________11_______________1 1--0------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: - Sat/Lime: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190'0 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.90 0.81 0.88 '0.90 0.81 0.90 0.86 0.81 0.90 0.86 0.81 Lanes, 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3327 3430 1534 3327 3430 1534 1715 4928 1534 1715 4928 1534 0__0________1_______________11_______________11_______________ 11_______________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.03 0.26 0.35 0.40 0.41 0.45 0.28 0.25 0.13 erit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap' 1.41 0.75 0.53 0.28 1.05 1;41 1.27 1.29 1.41 1.41 1.27 0.64' Uniform Del: 51.8 39.8 37.0 49.1 45.2 45.2 41.0 40.9 40.9 48.1 48.0 44.0 IneremntDel:196.4 3.3 1.3 0.4 46.2 198.8 136.6 134 195.6 200.4 131 4.5 Delay Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 248.243.1 38.4 49.5 91.4 244.0 177.6 175236.5248.5. 179 48.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 248.2 43.1 38.4 49.5 91.4 244.0 177.6 175 236.5 248.5 179 48.5 DesignQueue: 39 36 11 6 48 29 35 101 35 27 71 11 *******************************************************.**..******~***********.* . {- Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 DOwling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO,CA . - e . MITIG8 - OY w/P AM Page 1-1 Wed Nov 3, 2004 13:12:35 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -,- - - -- - - --- - - - - - - - - --- -- - - - - - - -... - - -- - - - - - '- - - -- - - -:- - - - -.- - - ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level- Of Service computation-Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ************************************************************************~*~***** Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd *****************-*********************************************************~***** Cycle (see): 120 Critical voL/Cap. (X): l.068 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 54.5 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D *************************************************~****************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R -----------~I---------------II---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include. . Include . Include Min. Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ____________1_______________11 n_____________II_______u______II_______________1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 l.00 PHP Volume: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 Reduct Vol ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 ------------I-----u--------I 1---------------1 1----- --- -------II u_______ --- u_1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustm~nt: 0.53 0_95 0.85 0.55 0.95 0.85 0_95 0.95 0.85 0_95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 10073610 1615 10453610 1615 18053610 1615 1805 3610 1615 _______n___I______u__n___II_n___u_______II___________u__II_u____~__7_---I capacity Analysis Module~ Vol/Sat: 0.61 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.21 0.16 0.13 0.21 0.04 0.22 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.20.0.20 Volume/Cap: 1.07 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.16 0.36 1.07 0.51 0.85 0.42 1.07 0.23 Uniform Del: 25.5 11.8 11.5 11.5 11.9 13.6 51.3 38.6 42.8 50.9 47.7 39.9 IneremntDel: 56.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 74.8 0.5 15.5 1.6 52.9 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0_0 0.0 0_0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0_0 0.0 0_0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 82.4 11.8 11.6 11.6 11.9 13.9 126.1 39.1 58.2 52.5 101 40.2 User DelAdj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 AdjDel/Veh:. 75.4 10.8 10..6 10.610.9 12.7 115.435.8 53.3 48.0 92.1 36.8 H042kAvg, 57 2 2 2 3 7 17 8 15 3 22 2 *******************************************************************~************ Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA M1T1G8 - OY w/P. PM . -.' . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Nov 3, 2004 13:13:08 Page 1-1 . -------~---------~-------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ".. * *.. * * *...."* * * * *"..".......".... * *.... * * *... *.. * *"...... *.. * * * * "'''' *. * * *...".. * *. '* * *. it.. "'''' **.. '* ..* '*... * .... Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd *.......................................*............."'.."'...................... . Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.882 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 39.1 Optimal Cycle: 101 Level Of Service: D it..*it...**.._.**....*................*...*.........*.....it...................... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R -- __________1_____ ------ ____11---------------11---------------11-------------.--1 Control: pennitted permitted Protected protected Rights: Include Include Include In~lude Min. Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ________ ---- :1---------------11------- --- -----11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module:. Base Vol: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117. 560 88 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 aa User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 PHF volume: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117. 560 88 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 361 353 148 183.273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 Final Vol., 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 ____"_______1_ --- ___________11---------------11---------------11------------"--1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: i900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0,53 0.94 0.84 0.48 0.94 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.84 0.94 0..94 0.84 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 10163581 1602 9053581 1602 17913581 1602 17913581 1602 ____________I-----------~---II---------------I I----c----------I 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.36 0.10 0.09 0.20 0.08 0.15 0.30 0.26 0.36 0.07 0.16 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.40 0.40. 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.34 0..42 0.42 0.10 0.18 0.18 Volume/Cap' 0,88 0.24 0,23 0.50 0.19 0.36 0.88 0.62 0.84 0.66 0.88 0.31 Uniform Del: 33.2 23.7 23,6 26.8 23.1 25.1 37.0 27.1 31.0 52.1 48.1 43.0 1neremntDel: 19.4 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.4 14.0 0.8 9.5 9.0 13.6 0.6 1nitQueuDel, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj, 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 52.623..8 23.7 27.923.2 25.4 51.027.9 40.5 61.161.8 43'-6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.6 23.8 23.7 27.9 23.2 25.4 51.0 27.9 40.5 61.1 61.8 43.6 HCM2kAvg: 26.4 4 10 3 6 23 14 21 6 13 3 ******************************************************************~************* . Traffix 7.7.0715 (e) 2004 Dowling AssOC. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO,CA . . - . MITIG8 - OY.w/p AM Wed Nov 3. 2004 13:14:00 Page 1~1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) ***************************************************************~************~*** Intersection #11 Margarita Rd/De Portola Rd * ** * * * ** * * '* * ._**** *** *** '* * ** * *** '* '* *** '* ** * '* * ** ** * '* ** *.*.1t ** * '* ** * * ** * ** ": * '* ** ** ** *. * '* Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): .0.464 Loss Time (see) ~ 12 (Y+R ,;,. . 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.3 Optimal Cycle: 72. Level Of Service: C ..it.it___*.....*__..._.__..*...........__..._._*_____._************.*.********"*** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------I-----u------u II--u----~------II-------_-__----II-------__----u.1 Control-: Protected Protected Protected Protecteq. Rights: Include Include Include OVl Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 . 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 133 724 65 62 863 .60 52 61 77 68 141 t;lo Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 133 724 65 62 863 60 52 61 77 68 1(1 80 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 133 724 65 62 863 60 52 61 77 68 141 80 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 133 724 65 62 863 60 52 61 77 68 141 80 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 133 724 65 62 863 60 52 61 77 .68 141 80 _____un___I_______________II----__-----u..-II--u--------.---II--u------_____I Saturation Flow Module: . Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.850.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.87 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 18053610 1615 18053342 232 1805 1900 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------I~--------------I 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.20 0.04 0.03.0.26 0.26 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 crit Moves: **** Green/cycle: 0.14 Volume/Cap: .0.51 Uniform Del: 47.4 IneremntDel : l. 7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 Delay/Veh: 49.1 User DelAdj: 0.92 AdjDel/Veh: 45.2 HCM2kAvg: 5 0.46 0.44 22.0 0.2 0.0 1.00 22.1 0.92 20.4 9 0.46 0.09 18.3 0.1 0.0 1.00 18.3 0.92 16.9 1 **** 0.19 0.51 0.18 0.51 40.7 19.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.,00 1.00 40.9 20.0 0.92 0.92 37.718.4 2 .11 0.51 0.51 19.8 0.2 0.0 1.00 20.0 0.92 18.4 11 0.08 0.17 0.35 0.19 51.9 43.0 l.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 53.3 43.3 0.92.0.92 49.0 39.9 2 2 **** 0.17 0.29 43.8 0.6 0.0 1.00 44.3 0.92 40.8 3 **** 0.08 0.17 0.45 0.23 52.4 43.4 2.20.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 54.5 43..6 0.92 0.92 50.240.1 3 2 0.36 0.14 26.1 0.1 0.0 1.00 26.2 0.92 24.1 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/P PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Nov 3, 2004 13.:14:40 page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation Report 2000 Hc>t Operations "Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Margarita Rd/De portola Rd *******************************************************~*************~********~* Cycle (see): 120 critical voL/Cap. (X): 0.633 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 30.1 Optimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** .r I , Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________I_______________II_______________I~---------------11---------------1 Control: . protected Protected Protected protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 2020 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base vol: 123 1205 139 78 1022 32 131 228 269 47 62 47 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse, 123 1205 139 78 1022 32 131 228 269 47 62 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 123 1205 139 78 1022 32 131 228 269 47 62 47 Reduct Vol: 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 123 1205 139 78 1022 32 131 228 269 47 62 47 PCB Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 1231205 139 78 1022 32 131 228 269 47 62 47. .____________I__c____________II_____----------I.I---------------11---------------1 saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 18053610 1615 1805 3486 109 18051900 1615 18053610 1615 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------\ Capacity Analysis Mod~le: Vol/Sat: .0.07 0.33 0.09 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.03 0.02 0.03 Crit Moves: **"'* **.*' **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.08 0.22 0.30 Volume/Cap' 0.54 0.68 0.18 0.52 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.49 0.68 0.31 0.08 0.10 Uniform Del: 49.1 23.5 17.1 52.7 26.1 26.1 51.3 39.0 41.1 51.8 37.3 30.1 IneremntDel: 2.5 1.1 0.1 3.2 1.0 1.0 8.3 0.8 4.9 1.2 0.0 0.1 . InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/veh: 51.6 24.6 17.2 55.9 27.1 27.1 59.7 39.8 46.0 53.0 37.3 30.2 User DelAdj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 AdjDel/Veh, 49.3 23.5 16.5 53.4 25.9 25.9 57.0 38.0 43.9 50.6 35.7 28.9 HCM2kAvg: 5 17 3 4 16 16 6 7 10 2 1 1 **************************.*****************...**********.****.............***.*' . Traffix 7.7.0715 -ee) -2004 Dowling Assoc. Lie~nsed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . i - .1 ~ I . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM wed Nov 3, 2004 1.7:4.8:03 page 1-1 --------------------------------------------~----------------------------------- . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base volume Alternative) **********************************************************************~**~****** Int.ersect.ion #.14" ,De Portela Rd/project n/w. ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/v~): 1.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 1.1.0] ~*******.*******.*****************.*.***********.*.*******.******.**.******.***~* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T ~ L T R L T R u__n____h 1___~__h_______1 1.____.___________11_______________11_______________1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11----------,----1 Volume-Module: Base Vol: 19 0 16 0 0 0 0 160 52 46 251 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.OO 1.00 Initial Bee,: 19 0 16 0 0 0 0 160 52 46 251 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 19 0 16 0 0 0 0 160 52 46 251 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final vol.: 19 0 16 0 0 0 0 160 52 46 251 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Critical Gap'Module: critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx x:xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx. xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx. xxxxx xxxxx xx:xx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ____________1__________ h_ --II ------ - ______h 1 1.---------------11-------- -----ul Capacity Module: Cnfli ct Vol: 529 xxxx 186 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx:x: 212 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 514 xxxx 861 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1370 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 501 xxxx 861 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1370 xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.04 xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxx ------------1---------------1 I---------------II--c------------I 1---------------1 Level Of Service' Module: Queue: 0.1 .xxxx Stopped Del: 12.5 xxxx LOS by Move: B * Movement: LT - LTR Shared Cap.: :xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xx:x:x xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx x.xxxx Shrd StpOel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx. xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ... ... .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ApproachDel: 11.0 ApproaehLOS: B 0.1 9.3 A - RT 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 7 . 7 .xxxx xxxxx A . . LT - LTR - RT xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx: xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx . . . . . . LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx = xxxx . . xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx . xxxxxx . xxxxxx . xxxxxx . Traffix 7.-7.0715 (c) 200-4 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/p PM Wed Nov3, 2004 17:48:22 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM unsignalized Method (Base volume Alternative) *********..*******...******....*******..***......******.........*.*.*****.***... Intersection'14 De Portola Rd/Project n/w .****..........**....**........**.....***.....***.***....***...**...*.*.*.***... Average Delay (see/veh): 2.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ .14.8) ...**...*.*......**...**......*....*...******...***...*....**~******.....*~...... ~roach: North Bound South BOund East Bound West. Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 control: Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include .Include Lanes: 3. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 .3. 0 0 ------------1---.-----------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: ~2 0 54 0 o. 0 0 530 32 28 3.66 0 Growth Adj: 1.003..00 3..00 1.003..00 3..00 1.001.00 1.00 3..001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 62 0 54 0 0 0 0 530 3228 166 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 l.00 l.00 1..00 1.00 3..00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3..00 1.00 1.00 3..00 3..00 PHF volume: 62 0 54 0 0 0 0 530 32 28 166 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 62 a 54 0 0 0 0 530 32 28 166 0 -.----------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.4 XXXX 6.2 xxxxx xxxx XXXXX xXxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx XXXXX FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx . 3.3 xxxxx XXXX XXXXX xxxxx xxxx XXx:xx 2.2 xxxx XXXXX _~__________I---------.-----I 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Module: cnflict Vol: 768 x:xxx 546 xxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxx . XXXX XXXXX 562 XXXX .xxxxx potent Cap.: 373 xxxx 541 xxxx XXXX XXXXX xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1019 xx:xx XXXXX Move Cap.: 365 %XXX 541 xxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxx xxxx xx:xxx 1019 xxxx XXXXX volume/Cap: 0.17 xxxx 0.10 xxxx XXXX xx:xx XXXX xxxx: XXXX 0.03 XXXX XXXX ____ - -------1- -.------------11------- ------- -11------ --- ---- --11---------------1 Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0 . 6 xxxx 0 . 3 xxxxx xxxx XXXXX xxx:xx XXXX xxxxx Stopped Del: 16.9 XXXX 12.4 XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX LOS by Move: C ... B ... ... ... ... ... ... Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR. - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: XXXX XXXX JOCCXX xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx.x XXXXX SharedQueue:xxxxx.xxxx xxxxx XXXXX XXXX XXXXX xxxxx XXXX XXXXX Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx: xxxx:x xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ApproaehDel: 14.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS : B ... ... . o . 1. xxxx xxx:xx 8.6 XXXX XXXXX A . . LT - LTR - RT xxxx. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xx::KJqC XXXXX XXXX XXXXX . . . xxxxxx . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . e BACKGROUND TRAFFIC WITH PHASE I WITH IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONS ! . . OY w/P JIM (Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fri May 7, 2004 09:42:08 Page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- scenario: command: Volume: Geometry: Impact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: Configuration: Scenario Report OY w/P JIM (Imp) OY w/ P JIM OY w/p JIM (Imp) OY w/p JIM (Imp) Default Impact Fee Default Trip.Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths Default ROutes Default Configuration . Traffix 7.5.0715 (e) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . e { e . OY w/P PM (Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FriMay 7, 2004.09,57:20 Page 1-1 Scenario: ------------------------------------------------------------.------------------- scenario Report OY w/p PM (Imp) Command: Volume: Geometry: ImPact Fee: Trip Generation: Trip Distribution: Paths: Routes: COnfiguration: OY w/o P AM OY w/P PM OY w/p AM (Imp) Default Impact Fee .Default Trip Generation Default Trip Distribution Default Paths. Default Routes Default Configuration Traffix 7.5.0715 (c) 2002 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8. - OY w/P AM (Imp) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wed Nov 3, 2b04 13:19,50 Page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Vo~ume Alternative) *-*..-.*........-.....--..-......*.*.....-.-.....-.-.--*-.--.-..-..-...--------- ): Intersection 11 SR 79/1-15 SB Ramps * * '* * -* *_. * * *. * *. * * * * * * * -....... * * *. -- * * * ** * * **. * *_. * * * * *. *. *. * '* *. * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.974 Loss Time (see): 9 IY+R = 4 see). Average Delay (see/veh): 42.4 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level .of Service: D *..................-.......-..........--------...-..---....--.-.--..-..--------- I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ---------.--1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 control: split Phase Split Phase protected protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 --------c---I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: am peak Base vol, 0 0 0 1404 0 298 0 400 309 1484 359 0 Growth Adj: ~.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1404 0 298 0 400 309 1484 359 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1404 0 0 0 400 309 1484 359 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1404 0 0 0 400 309 1484 359 0 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1..001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final., Vol. : 0 0 0 1404 0 0 0 400 309 1484 359 O. ___________ _I _______________11_________ ------11----- ----- _____11_______________1 Saturation Flow Module1 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1..00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 .l.00 0.89 0.89 0.92 1.00 1.00 Lanes, 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.13 0.87 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 5253 0 1900 0 1904 1471 3502 1900 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis MOdule: vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.42 0.19 0.00 Crit. Moves: **** **** "'*"'* Green/CyCle: .0.00 0.00 O.~ 0.~7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.44 0.65 0.00 VOlume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.29 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.1 0.0 0.0 0.046.7 46.7 33.2 9.0 0..0 IneremntDel.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 27.0 17.2 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.000.00 0.00 1.000.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.9 0.0 0.0 0.073.7 73.7 50.5 9.2 0.0 User oelAdj: 0.78 0.7a 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0:78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0;78 AdjDel/Veh, 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.2 57.2 39.~ 7.1 0.0 HCM2kAvg:. 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 18 18 34. 6 0 ***************************************************************"'**************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dbwling AssOC. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . , , I I , i. . MITIG8 - OY w/p PM (Imp) Wed Nov 3, 2004 13:20:36 Page 1-1 ~-----------------------------------------------------------------~------------- Level Of Service comp~tation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 SR 79/1-15 sa Ramps *******************************************************~*********************~** Cycle (see): 120 Cdtieal Vol./cap. . (X): 1.029 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 49-.4. Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ***************************************************************************.*.** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West. B9Und Movement: L T R L" T R L T R L T R -.---------- I _______.____n_II_______________1 1_______________1 1--------------- 1 Control: Split Phase' Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 00 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 ____________1 c_______n___n 11_______________11_______________11_______________ I Volume Module: pm. peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 1786 0 275 0 905 326 898 858 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1786 0 275 0 905 326 89B 858 0 User Adj: .1.001.00 .1.00 1.001.00 0.00 l.00 1.00 l.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00.1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1786 0 0 0 905 326 898 858 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 0 0 0 1786 0 0 0 905 326 898 858 0 peE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 0 0 0 1786 0 0 0 905 326 898 858 0 __u________ I-------n------I I-----nu------II---------------I 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj.ustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.92 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.47 0.53 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 5253 0 1900 0 2548 918 3502 1900 0 ------------1------------"--11---------------11---------------11--------------.1 'Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.26 0.45 0.00 erit. Moves: **** **** **** Green/cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.59 0.00 VOlume/Cap: .0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.76. 0.00 uniform.Del, 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 39.3 45.0 18.0 0.0 IneremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 33.7 38.1 3.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0;00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.0 73.0 83.1 21.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.770.77 0.77 0.770.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 AdjDel/Veh, 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.5 0.0 0.0 0;0 56.1 56.1 63.9 16.2 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 30 30 24 24 0 *******~********************************************************************~*** Traffix"7.7.071S (e) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, ~ MITIG8 - OY w/P AM (Imp) Wed Nav 3, 2004 13:21:53 Page 1-1 e ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------~-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alten>ative) ******************************************************...____t._._t_________.___ Intersection #2 SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps *.-.-.-----*-.-..-.-.------------*-----...--...-------.-.-.-.---.--------------. I , Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.713 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.5 Optimal Cycle: 55 Level Of Service: .C ****.**************************************************__._.t...._.__._._._.__._ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R _n_n___n_1 n___nnn__n II nn_nn___n_II__nn__nn___11 n__nn__n_n I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ignore Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 20 20 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 _nn_n__n I__"_n__nn_n II n___n____n__II_n___n___n__llnn__nn___nl Volume Module: am peak BaBe Vol: 149 2 867 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660 1872 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bae: 149 2 867 0 0 0 416.1388 0 0 1660 1872 User Adj: 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.001.001.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 149 2 0 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660 0 Reduet Vol. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vol: 149 2 0 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660 0 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 149 2 0 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660 0 n_nn__n_l_nn_n_n__n II-n---n-----n II nn_n_nn_n II-nn---nn---1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.87 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.96 Lanes, 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Fina1 Sat.: 1733 1733 1733 0 0 0 1733 4980 0 04980 1824 _"___n_____I_n__________n II----------n--- II--n-nn----n II--nn---------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.01 Uniform Del: 50.8 46.5 IncremntDel: 10.9 0.0 1nitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 61.6 46.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/veh: 61.6 46.5 HCM2kAvg , 7 0 . **** **** 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 l.00 0.0 o 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 o 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 l.00 0.0 o 0.00 0.00' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 o 0.34 0.71 34.7 4.1 0.0 1.00 38..9 l.00 38.9 15 0.80 0.35 3.2 0.1 0.0 1.00 3.2 1.00 3.2 5 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 l.00 0.0 o 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 '0.0 1.00 0.0 o 0.47 0.71 25.5 1.1 0.0 1.00 26.6 1.00 26.6 17 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 .0 **************************************~***************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowl:ing Assoc. Licensed to LLG,. SAN DIEGO, CA . . I , . MITIGB - QY w/p AM (Imp) Wed Nev 3, 2004 16:44:19 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HOM Operations .Me~hod (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street.. *******************************~*********************************************~** Cycle (see): 120 Critical vol./Cap. (X): 0.989 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average. Delay (see/veh): 26.9 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: C *******************************************************~************************ Approach: . North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L . T R ____________1__________ -----11----- __________11__________ -----11- --------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________11_______________1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 33 6 19 129 7 210 64 2441 15 7 3443 193 Growth Adj: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: ~4 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF 'Volume: 34 6 19 134 7 219 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: .1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final vol.: 34 6 19 134 7 21B 67 2539 16 7 3581 201. __________n I-------------n 11_______________11_______________11 _____________c_1 saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.B5 Lanes: 1.00 0.25 0.75 2.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1796 420 1259 3483 52 1564 17965160 1607 1796 5160 1607 n------c--- I------n-------I 1_______________1 I----------n--- 1"1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module:. vol/Sat: 0.02 0.01 .0.01 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.49 0.01 0.00 0.69 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.73 0.73 0.010.70 0.70 Volume/Cap: 0.99 0.77 0.77 0.270.99 0.99 0.99 0.67 0.01 0.67 0.99 0.18 Uniform Del: 58.8 58.6 58.6 46.0 51.4 51.4 57.7 8.4 4.3 59.5 17.4 6.1 IncremntDel:148.0 70.2 70.2 0.3 56.2 56.2 105.5 0.5 0.0 99.7 12.4 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 206.8 129 12B.8 46.3 lOB 107.6 163.3 8.9 4.3 159.2 29.8 6.2 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 206.8 129 128.8 46.3 lOB 107.6 163.3 8.9 4.3 159.2 29.8 6.2 HCM2kAvg: 3 2 2 2 13 13 5 17 0 1. 50 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG; SAN DIEGO; CA MITIG8 - OY w/p PM (Imp) Wed Nov 3,. 2004 16:45:38 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 $R 79/La Paz Stree~ ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.089 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 45.if Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D *************************************************.*************************~**** Approach: North Bound South Bound. East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Right.s: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0.3 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I---------------II----------~----I Volume Module: pm. peak Base . Vol : 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Final Vol.: 17 15. 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 19B ---------~--I---------------II---~-----------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.950.91 0.91 0.92.0.89 0.89 0.950.91 0.B5 0.950.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 0.42 0.58 2.00 0.28 0.72 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1803 722 1011 3498 466 1226 1803 5182 1613 1803 5182 1613 ------------I---------------II------~--------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat' 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.86 0.03 0.01 0.55 0.12 Crit Moves: .... Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.02 VOlume/Cap: 0.49 1.09 Uniform Del: 58.3 58.9 IneremntDel: 10.7 185 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 69.0 243 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 69.0 243 HCM2kAvg: 1. 4 0.02 1.09 58.9 184.6 0.0 1.00 243.5 1.00 243.5 4 0.09 1.09 54.7 77.3 0.0 1.00 132.0 1.00 132.0 12 ..** 0.09 0.47 52.1 2.3 0.0 1.00 54.4 1.00. 54.4 3 0.09 0.47 52.1 2.3 0.0 1.00 54A 1.00 .54.4 3 0.11 0.B1 52.0 20.9 0.0 1.00 72.9 1.00 .72.9 8 **** 0.79 1.09 12.8 44.9 0.0 1.00 57.7 1.00 57.7 72 0.79 0.04 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 2.8 1.00 2.8 o 0.01 1.09 59.6 303..7 0.0 1.00 363.3 1.00 363.3 2 **** 0.68 0.81 13.6 1.5 0.0 1.00 15.1 1.00 15.1 26 o . 0.68 0.18 7.0 0.1 0.0 1.00 7.0 1.00 7.0 3 ***********************+******************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO,. CA . . I ! e . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM (Imp) Wed Nov 3, 2004 i6:46:39 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base.Volume Alternative) *********.********************************************************************** Intersection #5 SR 79/pala Road *******************************************************************************~ Cycle (see): 120 .Critieal Vol.fCap. (X): 0.796 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average "Delay (sec/veh): 26...2 Optimal Cycle: 71 Level Of Service: C ..******************************************************************************* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound . West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11------------- --I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: . Ignore Include Ignore Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: .3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 -------~----I---------------II---------"-----II---------------1 I--------~------I volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 1358 0 354 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 135e. 0 354 0 0 '0 0 1638. 994 293 2280 0 User Adj: 1.001.00.0.00 1:001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBF Volume: 1358 0 0 0 0 0 0 1638 0 293 2280 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1358 0 0 0 o. 0 0 1638 0 293 2280 0 PCEAdj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj, 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1358 0 0 0 0 0 0 1638 0 293 2280 0 ------------I---------------II-------~-------II---------------11---------------1 saturation FloW Module: . Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 l.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes, 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 5253 0 1900 0 0 0 05187 1900 18055187 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.16 0.44 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.20 0.60 0.00 VOlume/Cap' 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.730.00 Uniform Del: 36.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 45_4 17.1 0.0 IncremntDel: 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 11.5 0.9 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.2 0.0 56.9 18.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 AdjDel/Veh, 37.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1 0.0 53.4 16.9 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 18 0 0 0 0 o. 0 19 0 13 21 0 *************************"******************************************************* Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ,. MITIG8 - OY w/p PM (Imp) Wed Nov 3, 2004 16:48:03 Page 1-1 . . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ***********...********************************************************~********* Intersection #5 S~ 79/Pala Road ********..****.**********************...***************************************. Cycle (see): 120 Critical vOl./eap. (X): l.159 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 51,.8 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ...**********...*************.**********.**********.*.******.***.**********.**~* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound ~est Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 I---------------II---~-----------I control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: . Ignore Include Ignore Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 3 o. 0 0 1 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 VolUme Module: pm peak Base Vol: 1435 0 709 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1435 0 709 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1435 0 0 0 0 0 0 2747 0 486 1730 0 Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1435 0 0 0 0 0 0 274.7 0 486 1730 0 PCEAdj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1435 0 0 0 0 0 0 2747 0 486 1730 0 _~__________I---------------II---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1'00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 5253 0 1900 0 0 0 0 5187 1900 1805 5187 0 _______ ___n I-u _ cnn___u_II___n___u _ un Iln--- ____n____II__n - n______ ul Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.2; 0.33 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.23 0.69 0.00 Volume/Cap: 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.001.16 0.00 1.160.48 0.00 Uniform Del: 45.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 0.0 46.1 8.7 0.0 IneremntDel: 80.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.7 0.0 95.1 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.001.00 0.00 1.001:00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 126.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 109 0.0 141.1 6.8 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0..59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 AdjDe1/Veh: 74.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.0 0.0 82.7 5.2 0.0 HCl<2kAvg: 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 31 10 0 ******************************************************************************** . Traffix 7.7'.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIBGO, CA . . ~ I . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM (Imp) Wed Nov 3, 2004 16:48:.45 page 1~1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) '*"............" t-. ****... **... *****....... ** 'It **... ** ** * * **...... ** ...**... *.* * ** * * * *... *... * * *** ** ......... **... ***...... t ** Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk parkway *************w*********************************************************~******** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.891 Loss Time (sec)": 12 (Y+R::::t .4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 46.2 . qptimal Cycle: 115 Level Of Service: D ********************-************************************************************ Approach: ~orth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: ~ T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Control: . Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Ovl Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20. 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 - 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------I~--------------II---------------II---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 693 567 233 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 T.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 693 567 233 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 693 567. 198 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 693 567 198 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 693 567 198 168 505 391 432 1211 334 3281767 177 ------------I---------------II---------u--n 11__u___________II____~__________1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.~2 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 35023610 1615 3502 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 ------------ 1---------------11--------------- 11---------------11--------------- 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.24 0.12 0.23 0.21 0.09 0.34 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.30 0.44 0.12 0.21 0.34 0.13 0.35 0.55 0.14 0.36 0.47 VOlume/Cap: 0.96 0.53 0.28 0.40 0.67 0.72 0.~6 0.67 0.37 0.67 0.96 0.23 Uniform Del: 47.1 35.2 21.8 49.0 43.7 34.8 51.9 33.5 15.1 49.1 37.7 18.~ IneremntDel, 23.3 0.5 0.2 0.6 2.4 4.6 31.5 1.0 0.3 3.7 12.3 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 70.4 35.7 22.0 49.646.1 39.4 83.4 34.5 15.4.52.850.1 .18.8. User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 70.4 35_7 22.0 49.6 46.1 39.4 83.4 34.5 15.4 52.8 50.1 18.8 HCM2kAvg: 18 9 5 3 10 14 12 13 7 7 26 4 ************~******************************************************************* Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG. SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/p PM (Imp) Wed Nov 3, 2004.16:49:17 Page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) .***.........**..............**.***************.****..**.**************.*****.*~ Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk Parkway .*******...***'.******....**********..*******...*********..********..*.****~**..* cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.089. Loss.Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 54.9 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D *****************..*******.****.*****************************.*****.**..*~*.**.. Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West BOWld Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_____ __________11______ --- ____n 11---- ___________11_______________1 Control: Protected. Protected protected protected Rights: Ovl Ovl Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 10. 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 .20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1. ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 664. 713 264 182 892 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 664 713 264 182 892 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00. PHF Volume: 664 713 224 182 892 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 664 713 224 .182. 892 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 . PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 664 713 224 182 892 540 .653 2112 751 478 1295 208 ____________1_______________11------- ____n~_II--.-------- _____11_______________1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00.3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 ____________1_______________11------- --------II--n-------- ---11------ ---------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.20 0.14 0.05 0.25 0.33 0.19 0.41 0.47 0.14 0.25 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/cycle: 0.17 0.29 0.41 0.11 0.23 0.44 0.21 0.37 0.55 0.13 0.29 0.40 Volume/Cap: 1.090.69 0.34 0.451.09 0.76 0.871.09 0.85 1.090..87 0.32 Uniform Del: 49.6 38.1 24.1 49.6 46.4 28.2. 45.6 37.6 22.9 52.5 40.8 24.8 IneremntDel: 63.1 2.0 0.3 0.8 58.6 4.8 11.1 49.4 7.8 69.2 6.1 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 112.7 40.1 24.4 50.4 105 33.0 56.8 87.0 30.7 121.7 46.9 25.1 User DelAdj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0:80 0.80 AdjDel/veh: 90.1 32.1 19.5 40.4 84.0 26.4 45.4 69.6 24.6 97.4 37.5 20.1 HCM2kAvg: 20 13 6 4 25 18 15 37 26 15 18 5 *******************************************"************************************* . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. L~censed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA e . . . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM (Imp). wed Nov 3, 2004 16:53:47 Page 1-], __________________________________________________8_____________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM"Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd ********************************************************************~**********~ Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. .(X): 0.758. Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R... 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 39.9 Optimal Cycle: 92 Level Of Service: D . ..****************************************************.*********************~*** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement": L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 I-----------~---I Control: Protected Protected protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2. 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ____________1 u____u_______II_c_____________11 u_____________II_______________1 Volume "Module: Base Vol: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 _______~____I---------------II---------------I 1---------------\1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 35023610 1615 1805 3610 1615 35023610 1615 18053610 1615 _ ________u_\_ __ ________ ____11_______________11______ --- u____II___________c___1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0;18 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.21 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.04 0.22 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.26 0.50 0.13 0.29 .0.29 VOlume/Cap: 0.76 0.32 0.25 0.14 0.33 0.76 0.760.49 0.43 0.310.76 0.16 Uniform Del: 42.8 36.5 35.7 34.734.9 40.0 52.237.5 19.4 47.238;9 31.9 IneremntDel: 4.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 .7.4 8.7 0.4 0.4 0.8 3.3 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00" Delay/Veh: 47.036.7 36.0 34.835.1 47.4 60.9 37.9 19.8 48.042.2 32.1 User DelAdj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 AdjDel/Veh: 46.0 35.9 35.3 34.1 34.4 46.4 59.6 37.1 19.4 47.0 41.3 31.4 HCM2kAvg: 13 5 3 2 5 13 7 8 8 3 15 2 *******************************************************************~************ Traffix-7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO.. CA [ MITIG8 - OY w/p PM (Imp) Page 1-1 . Wed Nov 3, 2004 16:52:45 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *.***********.~**.************.****************.***..**************.************ Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd *********************~*****************.**********~***************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./cap. (x): 0.668 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 38.4 optimal Cycle.: 92 Level Of service: D .****************************************************************~**********t*.** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound- WeSt Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L .T R ---_._-~----I---------------II-----~---------I I---------------II--------------~I Control: protected Protected protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: .25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 1 0.2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------I---------------II------"--------II---------------II----~----------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 L.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initiai Bse: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1,001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 8a PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: .1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 _-----------1---"-----------11---------------11---------------11----------_____I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.88 0.91 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.81 0.88 0.91 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.81 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Fina~ Sat.: 3344 3448 1542 17243448 1542 3344 3448 1542 17243448 1542 -----.-- ____1_______________11__________"____11_______________11______ ---------1 Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.27 0.37 0.07 0.16 0.06 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.21 Volume/Cap: 0.52 Uniform Del: 42.2 IncremntDel: 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 Delay Adj : 1.00 Delay/Veh: 42.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 Adj Del IVeh: 42.8 HCM2kAvg: 7 . **** **** **** 0.21 0.49 41.6 0.5 0.0 1.00 42.1 1.00 42.1 6 0.21 0.71 43.8 7.2 0.0 1.00 50.9 1.00 50.9 9 0.24 0.69 41.8 2.6 0.0 1.00 44.4 1.00 44.4 11 0.59 0.63 16.0 1.4 0.0 1.00 17.4 1.00 17.4 14 0.10 0.71 52.7 13.7 0.0 1.00 66.4 l.00 66.4 6 0.24 0.67 41.2 2.2 0.0 1.00 4.3.3 1.00 43.3 10 0.24 0.24 36.6 0.3 0.0 1.00 36.9 1.00 36.9 3 0.38 0.71 31.4 1.9 0.0 1.00 33.3 1.00 33.3 16 0.21 0.45 41.3 1.0 0..0 1.00 42.3 1.00 42.3 5 0.21 0.21 0.50 0.37 41.8 40.3 1.1 0.3 .0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 42.9 40.6 1.00 1.00 42.9 40.6 7 4 *********************************.***********************.*..**.**.***.***..***. Traffix7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LUG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . , BACKGROUND WITH TOTAL PROJECT OPERATIONS I . I I I . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:26:27 Page 1-1 . . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative). **************************..**************************.*..._..._...t..__..._..... Intersection #1 SR 79/I-15 SB Ramps *******************~*********************.***.**.****........................... Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): 1.153 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 110.5 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ..*..........-..........-.....-......--.............-.-........--.......-.-.-..- Approach: North Bound south Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1"--------------1 Control: . Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 ._-----------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volwne Module: am peak Base Vol: .0 0 0 1404 0 298 0 400 309 1484 359 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~.oo Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1404 0 298 0 400 309 1484 359 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF volume: 0 0 0 1404 0 0 0 400 309 1484 359 0 Reduet Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol.: 0 0 0 1404 0 0 0 400 309 1484 359 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final vol.: 0 0 0 1404 0 0 0 400 309 1484 359 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ~900 1900 Adjustment: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.97 0.97 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.13 0.87 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3397 0 1843 0 1847 1427 3397 1843 0 _n~--nn--I----nnnnn-ll-n-------nn-llnn------~nn II nn___n______1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.44 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: .*** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.57 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.34 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.7 48.7 37.3 14.0 0.0 IneremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.5 86.5 78.3 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 117.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 135 135.3 115.5 14.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 117.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 135 135.3 115.5 14.2 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 22 22 44 7 0 ******************************************************************************** . .Traffix 7.7.0715 (cl 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . e , I - . MITIG8 - OY w/p PM Wed Nav 3, 2004.17:26:54 Page 1-1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------~------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations-Method (Base volume Alternative) ".. ft* ft*'*''''''''''' ** *...... *...... ** **.... ."... """.... ft*.. **.. *"........ *".............. **.. **...... *,~" **...... ....... '" ,*,. Intersection #1 sa 79/1-15 SB RampS *"***""""""**"*""****"****""""*******"*******"********""**********""*****"*""""* Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.250 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R ~ :4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 139.3 Optimal cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******"*""***"*"***"""*"*""*******"*"***""***"********ft************************* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10. 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 ---- _ _______1____ ___________11____ ---------- -11---- -----------11---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 1786 0 275 0 905 326 .898 858 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 1786 0 275 0 905 326 898 858 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1786 0 0 0 905 326 898 858 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1786 0 0 0 905 326 898 858 0 PCB Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj:. 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00. 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final. Vol.: 0 0 0 1786 00 0 905. 326 898 858 0 ____________1_______________11 _______________11_______________11_______________ I Saturation Plow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.97 0.97 0;97 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.97 0.97 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.47 0.53 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3397 0 1843 02471 890 33971843 0 ____________1_______________11___ ---------- --11---- __n___ ----11--------- ------ 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.47 0.00 crit Moves: **** **** ***.* Green/CyCle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.50 0.00 VOlume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.92 0.00. unifo~ Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.4 42.4 47.3 27.6 0.0 IneremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0.118.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 121 121.1 123.9 14.4 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 153.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 163 163.5 171.2 42.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 153.3 O~O 0.0 0.0 163 163.5 171.2 42:.0 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 40 40 31 33 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.-0715 (e) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO,CA ,. , , I , MITIG8 -.OY w/p AM Page 1-1. . Wed Nov 3, -2004 17:26:41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------~------------------------------------------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *******************.********..*******.****************************************** Interseetion.#2 .SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps *******************************************************************...*****.**.* Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.844. Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R =..4 see) Average Delay (see/veJ,): 171.1 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ********.**********.******.*.*.*****.*******************..********************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11--"------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 20 20 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 volUme Module: am peak Sase Vol: 149 2 867 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660 1872 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Initial Sse: 149 2 867 0 0 0 416 l388 0 0 1660 1872 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 149 2 867 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660 1872 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 149 2 867 0 O' 0 416 1388 0 0 1.660 1.872 PCB Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00. MLF. Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 149 2 867 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660 1872 ___n_______I_______________1 1_______________11_______________1 I__nn___n-- __I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0;85 Lanes: 0.99 0.01 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1354 18 2745 0 0 0 1805 5187 0 0 5187 1615 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I--------nn---I 1 n__n_n____n 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.11 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.27 0.00 0.0'0 0.32 1.16 Crit Moves: *... .... 'll... Green/cycle: 0.17 0~17 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.64 1.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.51 1.84 Uniform Del: 46.3 46.3 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 22.3 IneremntDel: 0.9 0.9 386.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 396.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0,1 383.5 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 De1ay/Veh: 47.2 47.2 436.4 0.0 0.0. 0.0 448.9 5.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 405.8 . User DelAdj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 AdjDel/Veh: 37.8 37.8 349.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 359.1 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 324.6 HCM2kAvg: 7 7 47 0 0 0 42 6 0 0 11 172 ...'ll........................*.........................*.*..~.*.***.***.****.*.*. e Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . . . MITIG8 - OY w/p PM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17,27:07 Page 1-1 ------------------------------------------~------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersecti~ #2 SR 79/I-1S NB Ramps "*******************************************************************************~. Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (x) i 1.770 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 151.3 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L" T R L T R L T R L T R ------------I~--------------II---"-----------I 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected "Rights: Include Include Include Include "Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ____________1 _______________11 __"_______n___ 11_______________ II-----u-------- 1 volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 515 0 1847. 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 1340 1359 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.OO 1,00 Initial Bse: 515 0 1847 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 1340 1359 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj:. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 515 0 1847 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 1340 1359 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 515 0 1847 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 1340 1359 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 515 0 1847 0 0 0 263 2383 0 . 0 1340 1359 ------------ 1 ___"___________11_______________11_______________11_______________1 saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. Adjustment: 0.951.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1~00 0.95 0.91 1.00 1.000.91 0.85. Lanes: 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 0 2842 0 0 0 1805 5187 0 05187 1615 ---"-------- 1 ______u_____u 11_______________11 _______________11_______________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.29 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.84 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..08 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 Volume/Cap: 0.78 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.54 1.77 Uniform Del: 33.7 0.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 55.lJ 21.7 0.0 0.022.3 31.5 rneremntDel: 5.8 0.0 351.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 362.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 352.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 1.00 0.000.00 0.00 1.00"1.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 39.5 0.0389.2 0.0 0.0 0.0417-.823.7 0.0 0.022.6384.1 User DelAdj: 0.800.80 0.80 0.800.80 0.80 0.800.80 0.80 0.80.0.80 0.80 AdjDel/Veh: 31.6 0.0311A 0.0 0.0 0.0334".218.9 0.0 0.018.0307.3 HCM2kAvg: 19 0 83 0 0 0 26 26 0 0 12 122 *********************************-********************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA r i I i I MITIG8 - OY w/p AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:16:10 Page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) .. **...... *....... **"... 1:" *** ***.... ** **.... * **........ **** **.. ..** ***... *........ *'II!-* '*........... ** .'......... * ** ........... Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical vol./Cap. (X): 0.995 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R"= 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.5 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: .C **.**~****.********.*****.**********..,.****.*.***~*.***..*****************.***** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound We$t Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_____.__________ 11_______________ 11_______________11_______________ I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 "0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0.3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ____________1_______________11_____________--11----.--------.---11_ --------------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 33 6 18 129 7 210 64 2441 15 7 3443 193 Growth Adj: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00,1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 Reduet Vol: 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 73581 201 PCEAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 -------~c---I---------------I I---------------II~--------------I 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.76 0..76 0.93 0.98 0.730.930.89 0.83 0.930.89 0.83 Lanes: 1.000..25 0.75 1.001.00 1.00 1.003.00 1.00 1.003.00 1.00 .Final Sat.: 1766 363 1089 1766 1858 1390 17665074 1580 1766 5074 1580 -------- ----1---- -- ---------11---------- -- ---11- --------------11---- ----- ------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.020.02 0.02 0.080.00 0.16 0.04 0.50 0.01 0.000..71 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.74 0.74 0.01 0.71 0.71 VOlume/Cap: 0.99 0.88 0.88 0.48 0.02 0.99 0.99 0.67 0.01 0.67 0.99 0.18 uniform Del: 58.8 58.7 58.7 46.0 42.7 50.5 57.7 8.0 4.1.59.5 17.2 5.8 IneremntDel:150.9 118 117.7 1.3 0.0 59.1 108.0 0.5 0.0 102.0 13.7 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. Delay/Veh: 209.7 176 176.4 47.3 42.7 109.6 165.7 8.5 4.1 161.5 30.9 5.9 User DelAdj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.001.00. l.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 209.7 176176.4 47.342.7109.6165.7 8.5 4.1161.530.9 5.9 HCM2kAvg: 3 2 2 5 0 12 5 17 0 1 51 2 ********************************************************"************************ . Traffix 7.7..0715 ee} 2004 powling Assoc. "Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . f ! , , I . MITIG8 - OY w/p PM. Page 1-1 Wed Nov 3, 2004.11:19:52 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service computation Report 2000. HCM Operations ,Method (Base Volume Alternative) ********************************************************.*t.*.**.*..****.**._.*. Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street .***********************-*****************.****.*******t*ttttt.tt........_.*...._ Cycle (see): 120 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 1.188 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R.= 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 74.5 Optimal Cycle: J.80' .Level Of Service: E t__.......t...._._....**__..*........._......_.._...._*******************~.****** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1.1---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1. 0 0 1. 0 1. 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1. 0 3 0 1. --- --- ------I------------n-II---------.------II-----.----------II---- -----------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 11 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 Initial Bse: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 444~ 50 12 2852 198 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 pap Adj: 1.001..00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 pap Volume: .11 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red~ced Vol: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 11 15 21 334 19 50 1644442 50 122852 198 ___--_n-n-I "nnn_____n_.11 nnn_______n II nn____n_____11 n_____n____n 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.18 0.18 0.93 0.98 0.13 0.93 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 0.42 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1160 620 868 11601853 1386 11605059 1515 1160 5059 1515 nn________I_____________n I 1---------------1 I----------n---I 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.88 0.03 0.01 0.56 0.13 Crit Moves: ***~ ~~.~ -i*** .*** GreenlCycle: 0.020.02.0..02 0.160.16.0.16 0.110.74 0.74 0.010.64 0.64 Volume/Cap: 0.41 1.19 1.19 1.19 0.06 0.23 0.88 1.19 0.04 1.19 0.88 0.20 Uniform Del: 58.1 58.8 58.8 50.4 42.8 43.9 52.9 15.6 4.2 59.7 17.9 8.9 IneremntDel: 9.6 225 225.,4 114.4 0.1 0.5 35.2 81.5 0.0 353.8 3.2 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 67.7 284 284.2 164.9 42.9 44.5 88.2 103 4.2 413.4 21.1 9.0 User DelAdj: 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 61.1 284 284.2 164.9 42.9 .44.5 88.2 103 4.2 413.4 21.1 9.0 HCM2kAvg: 1. 4 4 23 1. 2 9 84 0 2 32 3 . ..* '* * ** **.., *. * * *. ** ....:1-. * ** ....... *..... *.. *. * * *. *."*..., ... *...... * * * *...... *..........,..,.., Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/p AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:21:07 Page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . .. ------------------~------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** I \ Intersection #5 SR 79/Pala Road . *************************************.**************************************~*~* Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.973 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (see/veh): 40.9 optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ***.*****.**************.******************************************************* Approach: North Bound .South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1_______________1 1_______________II_______________II_____c____~____1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl " Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 2 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11-------"-------11---------------1 volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 1358 0 354 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1358 0 354 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1358 0 301 0 0 0 0 1638 994. 293 2280 0 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1358 . 0 301 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 PCB Adj:1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLFAdj: 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1358 0 301 0 0 0 01638 994 293 2280 0 ______n____I_"_____________II_______________II_____________ --11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.97 0.83 0.97 0.97 0.9T 0.97 0.87 0.81 0..91 0.87 0.97 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3405 0 1571 0 0 0 0 4943 1539 1720 4943 0 n__________I_______________II_______________II_______________II________n__---I capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.40 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.65 0.17 0.46 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** ****" Green/Cycle: 0.41 0.00" 0.58 0_00 0_00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.75 0.17 0.52 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.97 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.86 0.97 0.89 0.00 Uniform Del: 34.8 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0_0 39.0 10.6 49.2 26.2 0.0 IneremntDel: 18.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 6.8 44.5 4.6 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/veh: 52.8 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0_0 55.1 17_4 93_7 30.7 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52-.8 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.055.1 17.4 93-.730.7 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 32 0 6 0 0 0 0 25 28 16 28 0 ******************************************************************************** . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIBGO, CA . . e i . MITIG8 - OY w/p PM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:21:22 page 1,-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ........ *............................ * **.... **...... ** **.... **............... **** ***. ** **'*........ ** *. * * **........ *........ *** ** *.......... **.'*.... ** *........ *.* Intersection #5 SR 79/paJ.a Road **.... '*........ * *.... * *** *.. *..... *.. '" ** ** * 'fr'. ***** * ***..... **'" ** * *............ ** '* ** * * * *........ **.... '* * * *.. * *.1Ir * *... **.. ~ *.... Cycle (see): 120 Critical vol./Cap. (X): 1.660 Loss TLme (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 193.0 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ***************************************************************************~***. Approach:' North Bound soutb Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T 'R L T R L T R ____________1_______________1 1_________~_____II---------c-----1 1---------------1 control: Split phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: OVl Include OVl Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20" 0 Lanes: 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11- -- ------------11---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base vol: 1435 0 709 0 0" 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 Growth Adj: LOO 1.00 1.00 LOO 1.00 LOO 1.00 LOO 1.00 1.001.00 l.00 Initial Bse: 1435 0 709 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1435 0 603 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1435 0 603 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00. 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1435 0 603 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 ------------1 ~-- ------------11---- -----------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.97 0.83 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.87 0.81 0.91 0.87 0.97 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Pinal Sat.: 3405 0 ~571 0 0 0 0 4943 1539 1720 4943 0 -.-----------1---------------11---------------11-- -------------11 "------ --------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.42 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 1.25 0.28 0.35 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.210.00 0.34 0.000.00 0.00 0..000.58 0.79 0.13 0.72 0.00 VOlume/Cap: 2.02 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.58 2.14 0.49 0.00 Uniform Del: 47.5 0.0 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.023.3 12.4 52.1 7.4 0".0 InerenmtDel:465.2 0.0 79.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 265.0 528.8 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 512.7 0.0 118.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.3 277.4 580.9 7.5 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 512.7 0.0 118.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.3 277.4 580.9 7.5 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 75 0 34 0 0 0 0 37 155 53 9 0 ***~************.*************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/p AM wed Nov 3, 2004 17:21:40 Page 1-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------~--------------~-------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ....**..***********************************************************.**.****t***** Intersection #7 sa .79/Avenida De Missiones .*... ***............... *** ** *'."'''' ***....*......... ** **... **...... .'*. ****...... **...... **...... **............... **........ *......... ** ***...... *. Cycle (see): 100 Critical vol./cap. (X): 0.683 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.3 Optimal Cycle: 57 Level Of Service: A ...... **............... *.. ***... **.............. ***......... .".,'" ** **...... **...... **......... *.................. ***..................... **... **... *. **** **......... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R .L T R L T. R ----------- _1_________.___ ---11---------------11--- -------~----II--------------c 1 Control: Split Phase Split. Phase protected protected Rights: Include Include Include ,Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 11 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volmne Module: Base Vol: 46 0 20 0 1 1 5 1900 23 8 2819 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse.: 46 0 20 0 1 1 5 1900 23 8 2819 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1,00 PHF Adj:. 1.001.00..1.00 1.001.00 1.00 _1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF volume: 46 0 20 0 1 1 5 1900 23 8 2819 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 0 20 0 1 1 5 1900 23 8 2819 0 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00. 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 0.0 1. 00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 46 0 20 0 1 1 5 1900 23 8 2819 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.95 0.81 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.81 0.90 0.86 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.33 2.00 3.00 1.0P 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1718 0 1534 1805 1113 2226 3327 4928 1534 17154928 1805 ------------1--------- ----- -11---------------11--- ------------11------- - -------1 capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.01 0.00 0.57 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.00 .0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.01 0.84 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.68 0.34 0.68 0.46 0.02 0.46 0.68 0.00 Uniform Del: 47.4 0.0 46.8 0.0 49.9 49.9 49.9 2.4 1.5 49.2 3.1 0.0 IneremntDel: 25.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 248 31.7138.2 0.1 0.0 18.6 0.5 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 72.6 0.0 50.0 0.0 298 81.6188.1 2.5 1.5 67.8 3.6 .0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 72.6 0.0 50.0 0.0 298 81.6 188.1 2.5 1.5 67.8 3.6 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 12 0 *..... * * * * * * * * *** *.It....... ** *** 1t................ * *... *.,... * ***.... *.............................. *....................... *... *.... 1t .,*....'*... . Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO,' CA . r' i e I I I I I . 1 . MITIG8 - OY w/p PM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:21:59 page 1-1 -------------------------------~---------------~-------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------.----------------------------- , ' Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) " ** *. * * ** * * * * *... *. * *0.** * *.-... *** * ** ** *. * ** **..* ** * **..*. * **.. **.. *....* *.... *.* **.. Intersection #7 SR 79/Avenida De Missiones _ ..******..***************.********************.***.**********************..*****" Cycle (see): 100 Critical, vol./Cap. (X): 0.859, Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R" = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.0 Optimal Cycle: 93 "Level Of Service: A *********.**.***************************.*******.***********.*.*****.*...*****.* Approac};l': North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 I" 0 11 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1--- -"----------11---------------11---------- -----11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 2306 0 Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 34 0 '11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 2306 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.00 l.00 1.00 l.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volwne: 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 2306 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 23'06 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 34 0 11 0 0 0 0 3575 71 18 2306 0 ------------I-------~-------II---------------I 1_______________1 I--c------------I Saturation Plow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.95 0.81 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.86 0.81 0.90 0.86 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sate: 1718 0 1534 '1805 1805 1805 3502 4928 1534 1715 4928 1805 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.05 0.01 0.47 0.00 Crit Moves: **.* .*.* **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.86 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.05 0.86 0.55 0.00 Uniform Del: 48.7 0.0 48.1 0.0 0.0" 0.0 0.0 4.4 1.3 49.3 1.9 O.P IneremntDel: 89.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 131.7 0.2 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 1.00 0.000.00 0.00, 0.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 137.8 0.0 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 1.3 181.0 2.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00,1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel{Veh: 137.8 0.0 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 1.3181.0' 2.1 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 24 0 2 7 0 *******.*******************************.**********.****.***"..***.*********.***** Traffix '7..7.0715 (c) 20.04 Dowling As~Ot!. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA ,. MITIG8 - OY w/p AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:23:00 Page 1-1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . - - --. . -- -- - - -- -- - - - --- -- -- - ------ -- - - -- ---- - - -- -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - --- --- - - - --- -- - - - - -- Level Of Service Computation Report . 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) ...... "'.. '" **...* *** **_.. * '*...... '* * '* *** 1:... '* ** *** ** '* '* .... **.. ** *."... *** *** ** * ***.... '" '* '* '* '* *** '* "". * ** Intersection #13 SR 79/Project D/W ********~**************************.************~***************.*************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.711 Loss Time (see); 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.1 Optimal Cycle: 63. Level Of Service: B ******************.************.~*********************************************** -Approach: North Bound South Bound . East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R -___________I-u-c----------II-- -------------11- --------------11--- ------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green:. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 J. ------------I--------h-----II----------- ----11-------- -------11-- ---------: ---I Volume Module: . Base Vol: 50 13 50 86 5 55 204 1945 50 50 2684 181 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 13 50 86 5 55 204 1945 50 50 2684 181 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1:00-1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 50 13 50 86 5 55 204 1945 50 50 2684 181 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vol: 50 13 50 86 5 55 204 1945 50 50 2684 181 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00.1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Final vol.: 50 13 50 86 5 55 204 1945 50 50 2684 181 ----- -------I-u----------- -11---------------11----- -------~--II---------------I .Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 0.21 0.79 2.00 0.08 0.92 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 345 1328 3502 136 1501 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------1- ------- -------11---------------11----------- ----11------- ----- ---I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.52 0.11 Crit Moves: ..*. **** **** **** Green/cycle: 0.04 0.05 0.05. 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.75 0.75 0.06 0.73 0.73 VOlume/Cap: 0.71 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.50 0.04 0.50 0.71 0.15 Uniform Del: 57.055.7 55.7 57.256.0 56.0 53..7 5.8 3.8 55.0 9.2 5.0 IncremntDel: 28.7 19.7 19.7 14.9 24.5 24,5 8.1 0.1 0.0 3.8 0.6 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 85.7 75.4 75.4 72.1 80.6 80.6 61.8 5.9 3.8 58.9 9.9 5.1 User DelAdj: 0.87 0.87. 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87. 0.87 Adjoe1/Veh: 74.5 65.6 65.6 62.7 70.1 70.1 53.8 5.1 3.3 51.2 8.6 4.4 HCM2kAvg: 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 9 0 3 19. 2 *..*****************************************************************************. e Traffix 7.7..0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN I?IEGO, CA e , e r e j . MITIG8 -oy w/p PM Page 1-1 wed Nov 3, 200~ 17:23:15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service COmputation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *******************************************************.*...............*....... Intersection #13 SR 79/Project D/W *.*........*..........................................*.*....................*.. Cycle (see): 120 Critical VOl./Cap. (X): 0.940 Loss Time (see) :12 (Y+R = 4 see)_ Average Delay {sec/vehl: 21.1 Optimal Cycle: 148 Level Of Service: C *.*...................................................*.*....................*.. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Mo~nt: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Cpntrol: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include' Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 50 8 50 286 15 181 126 3480 50 50 2437 112 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 50 8 50 '.286 15 181 126 3480 50 50 2437 112 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 50 8 50 286 15 181 126 34BO 50 50 2437 112 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 50 8 50 286 15 181 126 34BO 50 50 2437 112 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 50 B 50 286 15 181 126 34BO 50 502437 112 ____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11____________---I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 0.14 0.B6 2.00 O.OB 0.92 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1B05 22B 1427. 3502 125 1512 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ____________1_______________11________ - ------ II -- -------------11-- _____________1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.67 0.03 0.03 0.47 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** *"'** Green/cycle: 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.71 0.71 0.03 0.69 0.69 VOlume/Cap: 0.94 0.74 0.74 0.740.94 0.94 0.680.94 0.04 0.940.6B 0.10 uniform Del: 5B.l 56.5 56.5 51.8 51.9 51.9 55.B 14.9 5.1 58.1 10.9 6.2 IncremntDel:101.0 31.8 31.B 7.7 45.5 45.5 9.9 5.7 0.0 101.0 0.5 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0_.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0_0 Delay AdJ: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Vehi 159.2 88.2 88.2 59.5 97.4 97.4 65.7 20.6 5.1 159.2 11.4 6.2 User DelAdj: 0.B7 0.B7 0.87 0.87 0.87. 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87. 0.87 0.B7 0.87 AdjDel/Veh: 138.5 76.B 76.8 5LB84.B 84.8 57.217.9 4.4 138.5 9.9 5.4 HCM2kAvg: 4 4 4 7 11 11 4 42 1 4 1S 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - oY w/p AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:23:56 Page 1-1 . e -----------------------------------------------------------------------~-------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base volume Alternative) ....**t.........................-..-........-.........*.******.*.*.**.~***...~*. Intersection #14 De Portola Rd/project D/W .......*. **......... .**..... *****...*.. **.... '" *** 'Ii.*... *.. fr-. ... ** **............ ** *.. *.. 'It" ..t." * *.*.... Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 11.91 .fr_.fr_................-...-.....................-....._.*.t..._..........-.-..... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bonnd West BoWld Movement: . L T R LT. R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11 "------------- -11------------- --11---------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled. Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ------------1---7-----------1 1---------------1 I---------------II------------~--I Volume Module: Base Vol: 34 0 30 0 0 0 0 160 95 83 251 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 34 0 30 0 0 0 0 160 95 83 251 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 .1.00 PHF Volume: 34 0 30 0 . 0 0 0 160 95 83 251 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 34 0 30 0 0 .0 0 160 95 83 251 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Critical-Gap Module: eri ticab. Gp: 6,4 xxxx 6 . 2 =xxx xxxx XXXXX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FOllowUpTim: 3 . 5 xxxx 3 .3 xxxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 .2 xxxx xxxx:x ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Module: cnflict Vol: 625 XXXX 208 .xxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxx xxxx xxxxx 255 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 452 x:x:xx 838 xxxx xxxx xxxxx JQCCC xxxx xx:xxx 1322 xxxx XXXXX Move-Cap.: 430 xxxx 838 xxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxx. xxxx. xxxxx 1322 xxxx xxxxx VOlume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx XXXX xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 xxxx xxxx -------- ----1---------------11-------------- -11------------- --11---------- -----I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.3 xxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxxx xxxx: xxxxx Stopped Del: 14.1 xxxx 9.5 xxxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: B * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: x:xxx x:xxx xxx:xx. SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ... * * ApproachDel: 11.9. ApproachLOS: B e * * *. . . . o .2 xxxx XXXXX 7.9 xxxx XXXXX A . . LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT xxxx xxxx XXXJPC xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LT - LTR - RT * xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx . * . xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ,XXJC( -xxxxx * . . . . xxyxxx . xxxxxx xxxxxx . . Traffix 7.7...0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGo, CA e ~ - . MITIG8 - OY w/p PM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:2l:29 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ,2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ***********************************************.***...*..****.*..**.**...******~ Intersection #~4 De Portola Rd/project D/w . .*****...**.......***....***.***..........***.....*....**..******..**.*.*.~***** Average Delay {sec/veh}: 4.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.7] .**.******...***.**.****...***...**.**..*****.........****************..******.. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R --- _________1_______ -"------1 I-------h------I 1--- ------------11--- ------------1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ____________1__________ -----I I--------c------I 1----.-------- ---11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 113 0 98 0 0 0 0 530 59 51 166 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 113 0 98 0 0 0 0 530 59 51 166 0 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1..00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 113 0 98 0 0 0 0530 59 51 166 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 113 0 98 0 0 0 . 0 530 59 51 166 0 n__________I_______________1 1_______________1 1_____________--1 I-n----- ------- I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:. 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 XJQOt XXXXX FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx x:xxx XXXXX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ..2.2 X]OQt.XXXXX ---c--- _____1_______________11_____________ --11--------- ---- --II --- ____________1 Capacity Module: cnflict Vol: 828 XJOCX 560 xxxx xxxx - xxxxx xxXx xxxx xxxxx 589.x:xxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 344 xxxx 532 xxxx xxxx XXXXX .xxxx xxxx xxxxx. 996 xx:xx xxxxx Move Cap.: 330 xxxx 532 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 996 xxxx xxxxx. VOlume/Cap: 0.34 xxxx 0.18 xxxx xxxx. x:xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.05 xxxx xxxx ________ ----I-------nn----II n___________ _ _11_____________ --11--- ------------1 Level Of Service Module: Queue: 1.5 xxxx Stopped Del: 21.5 xxxx LOS by Move: C * Movement: LT - LTR Shared .Cap.: xxxx XJOCX SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel : 17 .7 ApproachLOS : C 0.7 13.3 .s - RT xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xx:xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx . 0.2 xxxx 8.8 xxxx A . LT - LTR xxxx xxxx - RT XXXlOt . . . XXXlOt XXXlOt . XXXlOt xxxx XXXlOt XXXlOt xxxx XXXlOt . . . xxxxxx . Traffix 7.7.0715 (e) 2004 Dowling ASsoc. Licensed to LUG, SAN DIEGO, CA . . LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT xxxxx .x:xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xx:xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * ** * ** * xxxxxx xxxxxx . . MITIG8 - OY w lp .AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:25:12 page 1-1 e ----------.---------------------------------------------------------------~----- - -- --- - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- --- - ------ - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -.. -- -- - --- - --- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM_Operations Method (Base Vol-ume Alternative) *****..*.*...*.*.**..~*...*.*.*..**...**..*.....*..*.*****......***........***** Intersection #8SR 79/Redhawk Parkway .*. *.... '*. *.... ... ..... 't.t * **.. *... 't.t. *. **. *.*........ .._.._... *.... ....................... *... **.. *.. **.............. Cycle (see): .120 critical Vo1./Cap. (X): 1.035. Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R ~ 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 64.0 Optimal cycle: 1.80 Level Of. Service: E ....*._......__*.:.................._._.._...._......_._._..-t..*..**_._*..__..****.". Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Botllld. Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1----- -- --------11---------------11---------------11---- -----------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include "Include Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ------c-----I---------------II-------c-------I 1---------------1 1----"-------"--1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 693 657 233 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 Growth Adj:. 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial. Bse: 693 657 233 168.505 391 432 1211 334 3281767 177 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 693 657 198 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 geduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 693 657 198 168 505. 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00'1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 693 657 198 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 ------cn---I---- ------.-----11------- - -------I f _____n_____ ---11---- -----------1 Satuz::ation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 0.92 0.82 0.89 0.92 0.82 0.89 0.88 0.82 0.92 0.88 0.82 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3397 3502 1567 3397 3502 1567 3397 5032 1567 17515032 1567 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/sat: 0.20 0.19 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.25 0.13 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.35 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/CyCle: 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.34 0.34 VOlume/Cap: 1.04.0.60 0.40 0.40 0.60 1.04 1.04 0.93 0.82 0.93 1.04 0.33 Uniform Del: 48.2 34.9 32.4 48.3 40.4" 45.~ 52.643.3 41.8 47.039.7 29.5. IncremntDel: 44.3 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.2 55.8 53.5 11.4 12.5 29.8 31.5 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. D.O.. 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DelayjVeh: 92.4 35.8 33.0 48.9 41.6 101.3 106.1 54.7 54.3 76.7 71.2 29.9 User DelAdj: 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 AdjDel/Veh: 90.3 35.0 32.2 47.8 40.6 99.0 103.7 53.4 53.0 75.0 69.5 29.2 HCM2kAvg: 20 11 6 3 9 21 13 18 14 16 30 5 ******************************************************************************** e Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 20.04 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA e I e i. , ~ . MITIG8 - OY w/p PM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:27:51 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------~------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) * *".*-** ***.. * *.. ***.,.; * ******* '* '* '* **....,.. **"**... '* ** ***,.. '*... '* ** '* **** '* * '* '* '* ** *** '*.. ***... '* '* '* *... '* *'* Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk parkway ************************************-******************************************* Cycle (see): 120 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 1.436 Loss Time (see) i 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 134.4 Qptimal Cycle, 180 Level. Of service: F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bo~d West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L. T R __c___ ______1_____ ----- --- --11------"--------11---------------11------"--------1 Control: Protected Protected. Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 .10 ~O 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0- 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 _____c______I_______________1 I-"-------------II---------------II-;-~-----------I Volume Module: pm- peak Base Vol: 664 720 264 182 903 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 664 720 264 182 903 540. 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 pap volume: 664 720 224 182 903 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 Reduced Vol: 664 720 224. 182 903. 540 6532112 751 4781295 208 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final vol.: 664 720 224 182 903 540 653 2112 751 4781295 208 n_____nn_I_______________1 I----------hn-II---------------I 1--------- _n___1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900.1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.89 0.92 0.82 0.89 0.92 0.82 0.89 0.88 0.82 0.92 0.88 0.82 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3397 3502 1567 33973502 1567 3397 5032 1567 17515032 1567 ------------1---"-----------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.21 0.14 0.05 0.26 0.34 0.19 0.42 0.48 0.27 0.26 0.13 Crit Moves: ..*** *,*-** ***. *...** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.24 0.24 0;22 0.33 0.33 0.19 0.30 0.30 Volume/Cap: 1.44 0.77 0.53 0.50 1.07 1.44 0.86 1.26 1.44 1.44 0.86 0.44 Uniform Del: 51.8 40.4 37.5 50.5 45.6 45.6 44.7 40.0 40.0 48.6 39.6 33.9 IncremntDel:208.3 3.8 1.3 1.1 53.0 210.9 9.6 121 207.0 212.7 5.2 0.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0. 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/V~h: 260.1 44.2 38.8 51.6 98.6 256.5 54.3 161 247.0 261.3 44.8 34.6 User DelAdj: 0.980.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.980.98 0.98 AdjDel/Veh, .254.243.2 37.9 50.4 96,3250.6 53.1 157241.3.255.343.7 33.8 HCM2kAv.g: 28 14 7 4 2S 41 15 45 57 39. 18 6 ***....****....***'*********************...'***********...******.***.*.*.**************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc~ Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8.-oy w/p AM wed Nov 3,.200417:30:21 page 1-1 e -------------~---------------------~-------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ****************.".*****......***********.****.****.*.....*.************.******** Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd ..* ** 'I: ** 'I: *** 'I: 'I: * 'I: **..* **.* ****. 'I: ..... ** *. "'. .*...... *..... *.. **....* 'I: ..*. * '1:.* '*... * '*. 'I: * 'I: *.. '1:. **.* Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (Xl, 1.068 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 54.3 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D .***..**************..*******..*******....********************************..***. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R __________~-I---------------II.--------------II_--------------11---------------1 Control:. Pe~itted Permitted protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 .10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 10 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I---------------II-----------~---I Volume Module: Base.Vol: 619 297 101 62 330. 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 User Adj: .1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280. 467 345 74 788 76 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol,: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 ________ ____1__ ----------"--II--------------c 11---------------11------ - -- ------1 Saturation Flow Module: . Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 0.53 0.95 0.85 0.55 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 10073610 1615 10453610 1615 18053610 1615 18053610 1615 ------------1---------------1 1-------------.-1 I--~------------II---------------I capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.61 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.21 0;16 0.13 0.21 0.04 0.22 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/CyCle: 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 1.07 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.16 0.36 1.07 0.51 0.85 0.42 1.07 0.23 Uniform Del: 25.5 il.8 11.5 11.511.9 13.6 51.3.38.6 42.8 50.947.7 39.9 IncremntDel: 56.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 74.8 0.5 15.5 1.6 52.9 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O~O 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1..00 l.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 82.4 11.8 11:6 11.6 11.9 13.9 126.1 39.1 58.2 52.5 101 40.2 User DeLAdj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 AdjDel/veh: 75.1 10.8 10.6 10.5 10.9 12.6 114.9 35.6 53.0 47.8 91.7 36.6 HCM2kAvg: 57 2 2 2 .3 .7 17 8 15 3 22 2 ******************************************************************************** e Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIBGO, CA e e . . MITIG8 - oY w/p PM Wed Nov 3, 2004"17:29:22 Page 1-1 Level"Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ********~***.*******************.*********************************************** Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol~/cap. (X): 0.894 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 40.0 Optimal Cycle: 108 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R -----n-----I--c---n-------II---------------II------n-------II-----n--n---_I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 "20 20 10. 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ---- ________1_______________11_________ ------11---------------11 u_____________1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 361 353. 1.48 183 273 235 544 940 572 1.1.7 560 88 User Adj: . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced. Vol: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 PCB Adj: 1;00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1..00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 361 353. 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 n____U_ ___I__________~____II_u_____u_____II---~--u- --- ___11____ _______nul Saturation Flow MOdule: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.53 0.93. 0.83 0.47 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.83 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 10023531 1579 892 3531 1579 1765.3531 1579 17653531 1579 ------------1---------------1 I----n---------I 1---------------1 1------- _____u_1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.36 0.10 0.09 0.21 0.08 0.15 0.31 0.27 0.36 0.070.16 0.06 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.40 VOlume/Cap: 0.89 Uniform Del: 33.4 IncremntDel: 21.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 Delay Adj: 1..00 Delay/Veh: 55.0 User ~elAdj: 1..00 AdjDel/Veh: 55.0 HCM2kAvg: 26 0.40 0.25 23.8 0.1 0.0 1.00 23.8 1.00 23..8 4 0.40 0.23 .23.6 0,2 0.0 .1.00 23.8 .1.00 23.8 4 0.40 0.51 26.9 1.2 0.0 1.00 28.1 1.00 .28.1 11 0.40 0.19 23.2 0.1 0.0 1.00 23.2 1.00 23.2 3 0.40 0.37 25.1 0.4 0.0 1.00 25.5 1.00 25.5 6 **** 0.34 0.89 37.3 15.6 0.0 1.00 52.9 1.00 52.9 23 0.42 0.63 27.1 0.9 0.0 1.00 28.0 1.00 28.0 14 0.42 0.85 31.2 10.4 0.0 1.00 41.5 1.00 41.5 22 ......** 0.10 0.68 52.3 10.4 0.0 1.00. 62.7 1.00 62.7 6 0.18 0.89 48.3 15.3 0.0 Lao 63.5 1.00 63.5 13 0.18 0.31 43.0 0.6 0.0 1.00. 43.6 1.00 43.6 3 **...******...**********************************************~************...**...****......* Tr~ffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/p AM Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:30:38 Page 1-1 . ----------------------------------------------~--------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HeM Qperations Method (Base volume Alternative) **************.****************************************************************** Intersection #11 Margarita Rd/De portola Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.464 Loss Time. (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.5 Qptimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------l---c-----------I~c--------------1 1---------------1 I------------~--I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include .Ovl Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ._-----------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 133 724 65 62 663 60 52 61 77 66 141 80 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 133 724 65 62 663 60 52 61 77 68 141 80 user.Adj: 1.001:00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 133 724 65 62 663 60 52 61 77 68 141 80 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 133 724 65 62 663 60 52 61 77 68 .141 80 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pinal Vol.: 133 724 65 62 863 60 52 61 77 68 141 80 ____________1_______________11_________ ---- --II n________.____c II--------~-- ----I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.87 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Pinal Sat.: 1805.3610 1615 16053342 232 18051900 1615 18053610 1615 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.20 0.04 0.03 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 volume/Cap: 0.51 Uniform Del: 47.4 IncremntDel: 1.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 Delay/Veh: 49.1 User De~dj: 0.96 AdjDel/Veh: 47.4 HCM2kAvg: 5 e **** **** **** ****************************************************..************************** 0.46 0.44 22.0 0.2 0.0 1.00 22.1 0.96 21.3 . 0.46 0.09 16.3 0.1 0.0 1.00 18.3 0.96 17.7 1 0.19 0.18 40.7 0.3 0.0 1.00 40.9 0.96 39.5 2 0.51 0.51 19.8 0.2 0.0 1.00 20.0 0.96 19.3 11 0.51 0.51 19.8 0.2 0.0 1.00. 20.0 0.96 19.3 11 0.08 0.35 51.9 1.4 0.0 1.00 53.3 0.96 51.4 2 0.17 0.19 43.0 0.3 0.0 1.00 43.3 0.96 41.8 2 0.17 0.29 43.6 0.6 0.0 1.00 44.3 0.96 42.7 3 0.08 0..45 52.4 2.2 0.0 1.00 54.5 0.96 52..6 3 0.17 0.23 43.4 0.2 0.0 1.00 43.6 0.96 42.0 2 0.36 0.14 26.1 0.1 0.0 1.00 26.2 0.96 25.2 2 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA e . . . MITIG8 C oY w/p PM WedNov 3, 2004 17:30:55 Page 1-1 ----------------------'---------------------------~---------------------------~-- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HOM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************~* Intersection #11 Margarita Rd/De Portola Rd ******************************************************************~************* Cycle (see): 120 Critical vol./cap. (x): 0.633 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.4 Optimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service: C **********************************.*.*****************************.**********.** Approach: North Bound . South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T. R L T R ------------1---------------11--------- ------II---------------II--------~ -~----I Control: Protected protected Protected Protected Rights: Include -Include Include OVl Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 1. 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 .1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 C___________I_______________II---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 123 1205 139 78 1022 32 131 228 269 47 62 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 123 1205 139 78 1022 . 32 131 228 269 47 62 47 User Adj: 1-001-00 1-00 1-001-00 1-00. 1-001-00 1-00 1-00 l.00 1-00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 123 1205 139 78 1022 32 131 228 269 47 62 47 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 123 1205 139 78 1022 32 131 228 269 47 62 47 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . Final Vol.: 123 1205 139 78 1022 32 131 228 269 47 62 47 ---- --------1- --------------II---------~-----II-----.--- -------11-- ----- - -------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.95 .0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.94 0.06 LaO 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 18053610 1615 18053486 109 1805 1900 1615 18053610 1615 ---------"--1----------- ----II------------"--II---------------II---~---- -------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.33 0.09 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.12 0.17 0.03 0.02 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.49 0.49. 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.08 0.22 0.30 VOlume/Cap: 0.54 0.68 0.18 0.52 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.49 0.68 0.31 0.08 0.10 Uniform Del: 49.1 23.5 17.1 52.7 26.1 26.1 51.3 39.0 41.1 51.8 37.3 30.1 IncremntDel: 2.5 1.1 0.1 3.2 1.0 1.0 8.3 0.8 4.9 1.2 0.0 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0_ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0..0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 51.6 24.6 17.2 55.9 27.1 27.1 59.7 39.8 46.0 53.0 37.3 30.2 User DelAdj: 0.960.96 0.96 0.960.96 0.96 0.960.96 0.96 0.960.96 .0.96 AdjDel/Veh: 49.8 23.7 16.6 53.9 26.1 26.1 57.5.38.3 44.3 51.1 36.0 29.1 HCM2kAvg: 5 17 3 4 16 16 6 7 10 2 1 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7~0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO; ~ e BACKGROUND WITH TOTAL PROJECT WITH IMPROVEMENTS OPERATIONS. e e . i . . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM (Imp) Wed NOV 3. 2004 17:32:51 Page 1...1: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) ****.****************************.********************************************** Intersection #1 SR 79/I-15 SB RampS ............... ***......... ** ... '*........... ** ** ***..... ** .**.... *** ** *** **... ****............... **...... *-**.. **.. **-* ****. **..... Cycle (see): 120 . ..Critical Vol. /Cap. (Xl: 0.974 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Ave~age-Delay (sec/veh): 51~6 Optimal. Cycle:, 1110 Level Of Service: D ****************************************************************.*************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------I---------------II------c--------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Split phase split Phase Protected . Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1. 0 0 1 1. 0 2 0 1. 0 0 --------- "--I-------c------" 1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I---u----------I Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 1404 0 298 0 400. 309 1484 359 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 O. 0 1404 0 298 0 400 309 1484 359 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PI!F Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 1404 0 0 0 400 309 1484 359 0 Req.u,ct Vol; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1404 0 0 0 400 309 1.484 359 0 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 1404 0 0 0 400 309 1484 359 0 ________u__I_______________II_u____________II_______________II_____n___uC__I Saturation Flow Module; Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.92 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.13 0.87 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: o. 0 0 5253 0 1900 0 1904 1471 3502 1900 0 ____________1_______________11 n__n_________1 1_______________1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.42 0.19 0.00 trit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.44 0.65 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.29 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.7 46.7 33.2 9.0 0.0. IncremntDel; 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 27.0 17.2 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj; 0.000.00 0.00 1.000.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.7 73.7 50.5 9.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adjnel/veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.6 69.6 47.7 8.7 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 18 18 34 6 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA .MITIG8 - OY w/p PM .(Imp) Wed Nov 3, 20.04 n:33:45 Page 1-1 e Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations 'Method (Base Volume Alternative) ... **............ **... ....*... ** ******..... ** **."...... ** **....*...... **** *......... **.......... **.... **.............. **...... fr Intersection #1 SR 79/I-15 SB Ramps *********************************..*******....*****......**********..************....**** Cycle (see): 120. Critical vol. /Cap. (X): 1. 029 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 53.6 Optimal Cycle: 160 Level Of Service: D. *****..*******....****************..*******~**..*..*~*********************************. Approach: North Bound South BoWld East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R. L T R L T R L T R ------------1------------ ---11---------------11--------- ------II--------------~ 1 Control: Split Phase Split. Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1. 1. 0 2 0 1. 0 0 ---- -- ------I--c------------I 1---------------1 I--"---C--------I 1---------- -----1 volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 0 0 0 1786 0 275 0 905 326 898 858 0 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: . 0 0 0 .1786 0 275 0 905 326 898 858 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00. 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 001. 00 0.00. 1. 00 1. 00 . 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 PHP Volume: 0 0 0 1786 0 0 0 905 326 898 858 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 1786 0 0 0 905 326 898 858 0 PCB .Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 0 0 0 1786 0 0 0 905 326 898 858 0 ------------I--c------------II---------------I 1---------------1 1-- -------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1;00 0.91 0.91 0.92 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00. 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00.1.47 0.53 2.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 5253 0 1900 0 2548 918 3502 19110 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I--nn------- --I Capacity Analysis Module: VOl/Sat: 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.26 0.45 0.00 Crit Moves: ...... **** **** Green/CyCle: 0.000.00 0.00 0.33.0.00 0..00 0.000.35 0.35 0.250.59 0.00 volume/cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.76 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 39.3 45.0 18.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.7 33.7 38.1 3.1 0.0 InitQueuDel: Q.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: . 0.000.00 0.00 1.000.00 0.00 0.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.5 .0.0 0.0 0.0 73.0 73.0 83_.1. 21.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.830.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 AdjDel/veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.8 60.8 69;3 17.5 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 30 30 24 24 0 ***************************..*******.******************************************* e Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004- Dowling ASsoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA . I i , i [H I , I L ~ :,1 MITIG8 - oY w/p aM. (Imp) Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:34:44 Page le1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) .*.*..****.*****.***.**************.*******..****.~******************************. Intersection #2 SR 79/I-15 NB Ramps ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sech 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 0.980 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R ~ 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 37.8 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D *******************.*********************************.******************.******* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R LT. R L. T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected protected Rights: Ignore Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 0 20 26 Lanes: 0 1. 0 1 1. 0 0 0 0 0 1. 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I--u-----------I 1------ ---------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 149 2 867 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660. 1872 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 149 2 867 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660 1872 User Adj: 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 LOO 1.00 1.001.00 0.00. PHF "Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1..00. _1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 14~ 2 0 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 1660 0 Reduct Vol~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 149 2 0 0 0 0 416 1388 0 0 .1660 0 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 149 2 0 0 0 0 4161388 0 0 1660 0 ____________I------~--hU--II---u----------lln--C----u--ull-uu-u_______1 Saturation Plow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.660.66 0.66 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.66 0.64 0.70 0.70 0.64 .0.70 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 12601260 1260 0 0 0 12603621 0 03621 1326 __n____ ____1_________ ------11-- ---------____11______ ---------II--u- ----------1 CapaCity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 .Volume/Cap: 0.98 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 Uniform Del: 52..6 46.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 IncremntDel: 66.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.4 O~O InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ..0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 l~OO 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 119.0 46.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 48.8 0.0 User De~j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 119.0 46.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 48.8 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 9 0 0 0 0 0 21 6 0 0 26 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - OY w/PPM (Imp) Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:35:55 Page 1-1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** I Intersection.#2.SR 79/I-15 NB Ramps ******~**.*********.*.******.*.*.*****.*.**.*..*.*...*....*....***************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): 0.922 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 36.9 Optimal Cycle: 127 Level Of Service: D ......***....*****.....***.***..***...***.....**...*****...***.***********....** I , Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 Con~rol: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected. Rights: . Ignore Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20. 0 0 20 20 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 . ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 515 0 1847 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 1340 1359 Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 515 0 1847 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 ~340 1359 User Adj: 1.001.00 0.00 1.00 loCO 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 515 0 0 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 1340 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 515 0 0 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 1340 0 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00. 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 515 0 0 0 0 0 263 2383 0 0 1340 0 ________n__I_______________II____ -----------11-------------- -11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.83 0.87 0.77 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.79 0;87 0.87 0.79 0.87 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1576 0 2919 0 0 0 15764528 0 04528 1659 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **'*'. **** Green/Cycle: 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.21 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 VOlume/Cap: 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.92 0.00 0.00 0:81 0.00 Uniform Del: 37.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.4 23.4 0.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 IncremntDel: 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 6.2 0.0 0.0 3..1 0.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1;00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 58.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 29.5 0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/veh: 58.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 29.5 0.0 0.0 37.5 O~9 HCM2kAvg: 23 0 0 0 0 0 12 31 0 0 17 0 ****************.*************************************************************** e Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN. DIEGO, CA e . i ,. . -- MITIG8 - OY.. w/p AM (Imp) Wed Nav 3, 2004 17:39:22 page 1-1 --- ~ - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -.. ----- - - - ----- --- - - - - -... ---- - - - - - - -.- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** IntersectiOn #4 SR 79/La Paz Street ********~***..********************.****..*******.**************************t**** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.987 Loss Time (sec): 12 {Y+R = 4 sec} Average Delay {sec/veh}: 26.7 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: C .******************.*.********************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound. . East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ____________1--------- ______11_______________11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase. Split Phase Protected Prote9ted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ---------.-~I---------------Il---------------II---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 33 6 18 129 7 210 64 2441 15 7 3443 193 Growth Adj: 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.041.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Initial Bse: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 PeE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 34 6 19 134 7 218 67 2539 16 7 3581 201 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19001900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 0.25 0.75 2.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1798 420 1260 3488 52 1566 17985167 1609 17985167 1609 ------ ______1--------- __h__II-------- _______11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.49 0.01 0.00 0.69 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle, 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.73 0.73 0.010.70 0.70 Volume/Cap: 0.990..77 0.77 0.270.99 0.99 0.990.67 0.01 0.670.99 0.18. Uniform Del: 58.8 58.6 58.6 46.0 51.4 51.4 57.7 8.4 4.3 59.5 17.4 6.1 IncremntDel:147.3 69.9 69.9 0.3 55.8 55.8 105.0 0.5 0.0 99.2 12.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 206.1 128 128.4 46.3 107 107.2 162.7 8.9 4.3 158.7 29.5 6.2 User DeLAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 206.1 128 128.4 46.3 107 107.2 162.7 8.9 4.3 158.7 29.5 6.2 HCM2kAvg: 3 2 2 2 13 13 5 17 0 1 50 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix.7.7.0715 (0) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 c oY w/p PM (Imp) Wed Nov 3. 2004.17:37:25 Page 1-1 e --------------------------------------------------------------------------------. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service computation Report 2000 HeM Operations Method (Base volume Alternative) *********************.*************************.*******************.******.*.***. Intersection #4 SR 79/La Paz Street *~*********.******************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 1. 091 Loss Time. (see) : 12 (Y+R ~ 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 46.3 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ... *** ** ****.........".... ** **...... **.. **.......... "'........ .*".*..... ***.*................ ** **.......'*......... ***........... ..**.... t..... 'Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T. R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I---------------II-------~-------I Control: -Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 ___~________I---------------II--~------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2652 198 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 196 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12. 2852 198 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 17 15 21 334 19 50 164 4442 50 12 2852 198 ____________1_______________11_______________1 1---------------1 I----c----------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.89 0.69 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0,85 Lanes: 1..00 0.42 0.58 2..00 0.28 0.72 1..00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1800 721 1009 3492 465 1223 1800 5172 1610 18005172. 1610 ------------1---------------11---------------1 I-----------~---I 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.66 0.03 0.01 0.55 0.12 Crit Moves: ........ .....* **.. **..* Green/Cycle: 0.020.02 0.02 0.090.09 0.09. 0.11 0.79 0.79 0.010.68 0.68 Volume/Cap: 0.501.09 1.09 1.090.47 0.47 0.811.09 0.04 1.090.81 0:18 uniform Del: 58.3 56.9 56.9 54.7 52.1 52.1 52.0 12.8 2.8 59.6 13.6 7.0 IncremntDel: 10.8 185 185.4 78.0 2.3 2.3 21.1. 45.7 0.0 304.7 1.5 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 69.1 244 244.3 132.7 54.4 54.4 73.1 58.5 2.6 364.3 15~1 7.1 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh:. 69.1 244 244.3 132.7 54.4 54.4 73.1 58.5 2.8364.3 15.1 7.1 HCM2kAvg: 1 4 4 12 3 3 8. 73 0 2 26 3 *... ** *.. * *.. **.. * * * *.. ***... * * *.. *.. *** *. * * * *.. * * * * * * * * * t**" * * * * *.. *.. ** *** * * * *.* *** * * *'... * ** . e Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling AssOC. Licensed to LUG, SAN DIEGO, CA e e e [ I I . MITIG8 - OY w/p AM (Imp) Wed Nov 3.. 2004 17:40,41 .page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ... **...... *.." **.. **** ***.. .-."..... :t". *** **..*'. ***" ....". ** **.. **.............. *..... ** **... ** ***........ * **...... ** Intersection #5 SR 79/Pala Road ******************************************************************************** CyCle (see): 120 Critical VoL/Cap. (x).: 0.796 Loss Time (see): 9 (Y+R =4 see) Average Delay (sec/vehl: 28.8 Optimal Cycle: 71 Level Of' Service: C *******~************************************************************************ Approach: North Bound . South BoUnd East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L .T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11----------,--,-1 Control: Protected Protected . Protected Protected Rights: Ignore Include. Ignore Include Min. Green: 25 0 25 0 0 0 O. 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1. 0 3 0 0 ---------~--I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------,-----1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 1358 0 354 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 Growth Adj: 1.001.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1358 0 354 0 0 0 0 1638 994 293 2280 0 User Adj: 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1358 0 0 0 0 0 0 1638 0 293 2280 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1358 0 0 0 0 0 0 1638 0 293 2280 0 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00.0.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 1358 0 0 0 0 0 0 1638 0 2932280 0 ____________1 _______________11 __~___._~_____h 1 I-------h------I 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 3.00 0."00 1.00 0.00 0..00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 5253 0 1900 0 0 0 0 5187 1900 1805 5187 0 ____________1_______________11--------------- II _______________11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.16 0.44 0.00 Crit Moves: **'** **'** ****. Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.20.0.60 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.80 0;00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.73 0.00 uniform Del: 36.9 0.0 0;0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 45.4 17.1 0..0 IncremntDel: 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 11.5 0.9 0.0 ~nitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj:. 1.000.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.2 0.0 56.9 18.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96. 0.96 AdjDel/Veh: 38.0 0.0 0..0 0.0 0;0 0.0 0.032.8 0.0 54.517.3 0.0 HCM2kAvg: Hi 0 0 0 0 .0 0 19 0 13 21 0 ***************************'*********'********.************.*******...************~* Traffix 7.7..0715 (e) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA r. i MITIG8 - oY w/~ PM .(Iinp) Wed Nov 3, 2004.17:41:16 page 1-1 e - - - - --- - -- -- - --- --- -- - -- - ---... - - - - -- -- ---- - -- - --.--- -.- -- - - - - - - - - - -- - -'- -- - - - - - - - --- -----------------------------------------------~-------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HOI. Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ********************************************************..*.******************** Intersection #5 SR 79/Pala Road . ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical VOl./Cap. (Xl, 1.159 Loss. Time (see): 9 (Y+R ~ ~ see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 54.8 Optimal Cycl~: 180 Level Of Service: D *********~********************************************************************** Approach:. North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R - ___________I--------~------II---------------II-_-------------II.-----__---- ----I Control: Protected Protected Protected ' Protected Rights: Ignore Include Ignore Include Min. Green: 25. 0 25 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 20 0 Lanes: 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 .1 0 3 0 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I Volume Module: pm peak Base Vol: 1435 0709 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1435 0 709 0 0 0 0 2747 1929 486 1730 0 Vser Adj: 1.00 1.00 .0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH~Adj: 1.001.00 0.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 .1.001.00 0.00 1.001.00 1,00 PHF Volume: 1435 0 0 0 0 0 0 2747 0 486 1730 0 R.educt Vol: . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1435 0 o. 0 0 0 0 2747 0 486 1730 0 PCB Adj: 1.001.00 0.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00.1.00 0.00 1.001.00 1.00' 1.00 l.00 0.00 1.001.00. 1.00 Final Vol.: 1435 0 0 0 0 0 02747 0 486 1730 0 ------------1---------------1 I--------------~II.---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.00 Lanes: 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 5253 0 1900 0 0 0 0 5187 1900 18055187 0 ------------1---- ------- - -- -11--------- - -----11--------- ------11--- ---- --- -----I capacity Analysis Module: V~l/Sat: 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.27 0.33 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.23 0.69 0.00 Volume/Cap: 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.00 1.16 0.48 0.00 Uniform Del: 45.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 0.0 46.1 B.7 0.0 IncremntDel:.80.9 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;076.7 0.0 95.1 0.1 0.0 InitQueuDel, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.000.00 0.00 0.000.00. 0.00 0.00 l.00 0.00 1.001.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 126.8 0.0 0..0 0.,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 109 0.0 141.1 B.8 0.0 User DelAdj: 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 AdjDe1/Veh: 78.6 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0. 0.067.8 0.0 87.5 5.5 0.0 HCM2kAvg: 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 31 10 0 *********~**~***********************.******************************************* e Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG1 SAN DIEG01 CA e e '. ! i .. . MITIG8 - oY w/p AM lImp) Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:43:20 . Page 1-1 --------------------------------------~----------------------------------------- ------------------~------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Ba~e Volume Alternative) .... ** ** ** *.....".. **** **.. ...** ** .'... '*." ** "'... 'Ii. *** **." * *...... ***........ ** "'........ **.. * **........ "'.. *."'.. Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk Parkway ******************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 . Critical Vo1./Cap. (X): 0.894 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 46.6 Optimal Cycle: 117 Level Of Service: D *.. *** *** *.. *.... **.. **.. *.. ** ***.. **.. * **.. *.. '* it"'.. **.. '" * fr'...."'''''''' ** * **.. **.. ** ** ** * **-* * ** ** * Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1-----"------"--1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected. Protected Protected pro.tected Rights: OVl OVl OVl OVl Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: am peak Base Vol: 693 657 233 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 693 657 233 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBF Volume: 693 657 198 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 693 657 198 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 693 657 198 168 505 391 432 1211 334 328 1767 177 ---- ---- ----1---------------11-______ ---- ----11- ______________11__________"_ ---I Saturation. Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3488 3596 1609 3488 3596 1609 3488 5166 1609 3488 5166 1609 ---_________/_______________11_______________11_______________11_____________--I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.18 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.24 0.12 0.23 0.21 0.09 0.34 0.11 Crit Moves: **** ***. .*** *"'** Green/CYCle: 0.21.0.30 0.44 0.12 0.21 0.34 0.13 0.35 0.55 0.14 0.36 0.47 Volume/Cap: 0.96 0.62 0.28 0.41 0.67 0.72 0.96 0.68 0.38 0.68 0.96 0.23 . Uniform Del: 47.1 36.3 21.8 49.0 43.7 34.8 52.0 33.5 15.1 49_1 37.8 18_6 IncremntDel: 24.2 1.1 0.2 0.7 2.4 4.7 32.4 1.1 0.3 3.8 13.0 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 71.3 37.4 22.0 49.6 46.2 39.5 84.4 34.6 15.4 52.9 50.8 18.8 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00. 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 71.3 37.4 22.0 49.646.2 39.5 84.4 34.6 15.4 52.9 50.8 18.8 HCM2kAvg: 18. 11 5 3. 10 14 12 13 7 7 26 4 ********~**.***************.*.**********************************"'*"'*****.***.*** Traffix 7.7.0715 {c} 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - oY w/p PM (Imp) Wed Nov 3. 2004 17:44:26 Page 1-1 e ---~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------. Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) **********..*********..************..**.***********...********....***...***.****. Intersection #8 SR 79/Redhawk parkway **..............._.._........._.................._.....t.._..............-.-..-. Cycle (see): 120 Critical Vol./cap. (x): 1.093 Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 54.7 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D .-.............---....--.........-.-....-......-......*.*........._............- Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R. L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Ovl Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 10 25 25 10 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ____________I__~____________II---------------II--~------------11---------------1 volume Module: pm. peak Base Vol: 664 720 264 182 903 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 664 720 264 182 903 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 User Adj: 1.001.00 0.85 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 664 720 224 182 903 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 664 720 224 182 903 540 653 2112 751 478 1295 208 PCB Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00.1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 664 720 224 182 903 540 653 2112 751 4~8 1295 208 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11------"--------1 Saturation Plow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91. 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 35023610 1615 3502 5187 1615 35025187 1615 ------------I---------------II---n--------- -11- n____________II__n_____ ------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.20 0.14 0.05 0.25 0.33 0.19 0.41 0.47 0.14 0.25 0.13 Crit Moves: +*++ ++** +*** +... Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.29 0.41 0.11 0.23 0.44 0.21 0.37 0.55 0.12 0.28 0.40 Volume/Cap: 1.09 0.69 0.34 0.45 1.09 0.76 0.88 1.09 0.85 1.09 0.88 0.32 Uniform Del: 49.6 38.1 24.1 49.6 46.3 28.1 45.7 37.6 23.1 52.5 40.9 24.S IncremntDel: 64.4 2.1 0.3 0.8 59.7 4.7 11.4 50.7 8.0 70.4. 6.2 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 113.9 40.1 24.4 50.4 106 32.8 57.1 88.4 31.1 122.9" 47.1 25.1 User DelAdj: 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.790.79 0.79 AdjDel/Veh: 89.9 31.6 19.2 39.7 83.6 25.9 45.1 69.7 24.5 97.0 37.2 19.8 HCM2kAvg: 20 13 6 4 25 18 15 37 26 15 "18 5 *****+*+*********+*************+*********************+*************~************ e Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO," CA e ~ , - I i . MITIG8 -.OY w/p AM (III1p) Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:45:13 .. page lc1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 H(..l,IJ Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ********************~***************~******************************************* Intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd *********************~********************************************************** Cycle (see): 120 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.758 Loss Time (sec): 12. (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 40.8 Optimal Cycle: 92 Level Of Service: D ... *** .+**... **.** **...... **... "-if ****...... ** **... *. **... ***......................................... ***......... **... 11:...... it... *...... ***......... *. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L. T R L T R ------______1---------------11------------ ___11_______"_______11---------------1 Control: protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green, 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 20 Lanes: 2 . 0 2 O. 1 l. 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 --- ---______1---------------11--------- ------11---- -----------11----- _c________1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 LOO 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 Reduct. Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 PeE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00.1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 619 297 101 62 330 334 280 467 345 74 788 76 ------------1---------------11---------------1 I----------~----II---------------I Saturation Flow.Module~ Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00.2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 1805.3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ____________1_______________11--------- ------11------ ---------11---- ----- ------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.21 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.04 0.22 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** "**** **** Green/Cycle: 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.26 0.50 0.13 0.29 0.29 VOlume/Cap: 0.760.32 0.25 0.14 0.33 0.76 0.760.49 0.43 0.31.0.76 0.16 Uniform Del: .42.836.5 35.7 34.734.9 40.0 .52.237.5 19.4 47.238.9 31.9 IncremntDel: 4.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 7.4 8..7 0.4 0.4 0.8 3.3 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0'.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 47.0 36.7 36.0 34.8 35.1 47.4 60.9 37.9 19.8 48.0 42.2 32.1 User DelAdj: 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: .47.036..7.36.0 34.835.1 47.4 60.937.9 19.8 48.042.2 32.1 HCM2kAvg: 13 5 3 2 5 13 7 8 8 3 ,15. 2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.'.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA MITIG8 - oY w/p PM (Imp) Wed Nov 3, 2004 17:44:47 page 1"1 e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM:Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******.*********************************.*****************************~********* intersection #9 SR 79/Butterfield Stage Rd ******************************************************************************** i l. Cycle (see): 120 Critical VoL/Cap. (X) i 0.716 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 40.1 Optimal Cycle: 92 Level Of Service: D *******~*************************.**********************************************. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control.: " Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 25 25 25 25 25 25 10 20 20 10 20 .20 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------I------------c--II------------ ---11---------------11-- -------------1 . Volume Module: " Base Vol: 361 353 148 183 273. 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 User Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00. 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF volume: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 361 353 148 183 273 235 544 940 572 117 560 88 .------------1------- --------11---------------11---------------11-------- -------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 19001900 1900 19001900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 Adjustment: 0.82 0.85 0.76 0.85 0.85 0.76 0.82 0.85 0.76 0.85 0.85 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 31173213 1437 16063213 1437 3117 3213 1437 16063213 1437 ____________1_______________1 1________"______1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.i1 0.08 0.16 0.17 0.29 0.40 0.07 0.17 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** - Green/CyCle: 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.38 0.59 0.10 0.24 0.24 vol.ume{Cap: 0.560.52 0.49 0.540.40 0.76 0.730.76 0.67 0.760.73 "0.26 Uniform Del: 42.542.0 41.6 42.140.5 44.3 42.132.3 16.7 53.042.1 37.0 IncremntDel: 1.1 0.7 1.2 1.7 0.4 10.9 3.7 2.9 2.1 20.2" 3.6 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00.1.00 Delay/Veh: 43.642.7 42.9 43.940.9 55.2 45.835.2 18.8 73.245.7 37.4 User DelAdj: 1.001.001.00 1.001.00 1.00. 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 AdjDel/veh: 43.642.7 42.9 43.940.9 55.2 45.835.2 18.8 73.2 "45.7 37.4 HCM2kAvg: 7 6 5 7 5 10" 11 16 15 6 11 3 ******************************************************************************** e I Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA e ! " -- ! !" , i" . ApPENDIX C ROADWAY LINK ANALYSIS THRESHOLDS (RIVERSIDE COUNTY & CITY OF TEMECULA) lINSCOTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers ) [L(J Ref. 3-04-1403 Temecula Medical Center N.\1~3\lt.:~Rpl\Rerised.TblM~la~Potges.doc t;!~~~:;~r;:-~."-~':":~~'" .21~~1~:!~~;-."~ ., ..--" .:....-,.. ROADWf:.Y . CLASSIFICATiON Pnncipal Collector SecondarY Major erial Urban Artenal - fiR2 Urban Arterial _ fiR2. TABLE 8 . . LINK VOLUME CAPACITIES/LEVELOF SERVICE FOR CITY OF .JEMECULA -GENERAL .PLAN- ROADS'__ -' .. .,:: ~,:~.:>.\~t~'?~*~'%~~;1~: e NUMBER MAXIMUM TWO-WAY TRAFFIC VOLUME AD OF LANES SERVICE LEVEL C SERVICE LEVEL D SERVICE LEVEL E 2 4 4 4 6 8 12,800 24,800 32,000 33,600 59,200 65,600.- . 14,400 27,900. 36,000 37,800 . 66,600 73,800 .16,000 31,000 40,000 42,000 74,000. 82,000 e 1 Circulation Element Update for the City of Temecula General Plan, Wilbur Smith Associates, July 1999. 2 AR = Access Resmction j:~bles\r1ct300\rk1386tb ,~._.....,.,... "" ..... e f ; . [ . !" , , i .' , I i- j" . ApPENDIX D ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES "lrNscorr,LAw & GREENSPAN, eng;neelS ) lLG Ref. 3..()4..1403 Temecula Medical Center N:\I';G3\Revsed-Rpt~-ised-Tc!s'..l\pr:ndiix Cova P.agcs.doc r Hospital (610) e Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Ona: Beds Weekday Number of8tudies: 20 Average Numberof Beds: 396 ... ... . OirectionalOistribution: SO'Yo entering;SO% exiting Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate 11.81 Range of Rates 3.00 - 32.83 Stuida,rd Deviation 7.08 ,.i i " Data Plot and Equation 30,000 e .20,000 ., - _' _. - _:_ - - _:_ _. _:_. - _:.. __; _. _: -. -;- -. -:-. - -:-- - .:... 'CoO -:. - - ,'-' .:- ~~}>'>;~ -.; .',. ,/ ...../"',.~......... /~ . . .'. . . . . .,//./. . . . . . . . ~ '" _ '" _, . _ . _, _ _ . _,_ . . . ," ~ . . : . _ . ; _ '" _ _.;...-'_ _. _ _ _ ",_ _ . _ . . : _ . . , ~ . _ _.. _ _ _._ _ _ _,' - . '." - . . r . . . . /~/x:. '" '0 c: \1l .9- ~ " (; :<: " > " 0> I!! !? <( " f- 10,000 :x " ;..-" . x / . x i," :x : x x~)(JC:~ ~...x:/: : )&. x .' o - - -~ -0. ~ 100 200' 300" . 400-""""500--'600' -700' --SQO 900' 1000 1100 "1200 1300.1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 x = Number of Beds X Actual Data Points Fitted C,:,rve _n___. Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 7.42(X) + 1733.31 . 2' . R = 0.69 e Trip Generation, 7th Edition .1110 Institute of Transportation Engineers r~::. ,- .------ - -. . --.--.-..- .... -....- ---.---. e ,. ., ., ~. , .1 ! . Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Average Number of Beds: Directional Distribution: "trip neneration per Bed Average Rate Hospital (610) Beds Weekday, . . Peak Hour 01' Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. 8 483 70% entering, 30% exiting Standard Deviation 1.13 Range of Rates 0.32.' 1.79 1.14 Data Plot and Equation , 1.300 1.200 1,100 . x . . . . . . . - - -.- - : - - - - - - - - - - . - ~: . - - - - - - - - . - -;. - - - - . - . - - - - -:. . . - - . ,'. . . . . - ~ ~ - . . . . . . . . . '. 1,000 _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . . . J _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . .'. . . _ . _ _ _ _ -_ _ . ... . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . . .. . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . - . . . "' .." c: W .0: ~ <l) <3 :c <D > <D CD '" Q; > <(. II f- 900 800 700 . . . . ..-----.-----------.-.......---.- . . . .-"-.........x .........--.--.....- , . / /- . - - - - - - . . - - - - - - . -.:;....""-:.--....- - -... -:- -- /. ,/ / 600 .. . .... ..........-.,....-.---....,........ --.-.......:;......-....- x 500 ;x .. '-:' - -' - - -..- ~... .-.... -... -:- -. :.:............. *-. -. - - - -. -.. -:...... -. - - - -.... - - - - - - -- . / ...........:-... ,/ ..."'.... . .' - - - - - - -. - . - . : - - - -....:.:;..- - .. - ~- - - - - - - - -.' - - -:- - - - - - - - - . ' . - - -.- . . . - - - - - . - - - .. - - . . . ~ - - - - - - 400 ....... . . . . .------.,...---.- -.-----------------.-.--.-.-----------.-...-......-.-."-"'-.'-'--' /x 300 200 100 200 x 300 .:_--.-_._~._~.. x = Number of Beds ------ Average Rate X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: T = 1.44(X) -149.79 Tnp Genf{!ration, 7th Edition 500 700 800 BOO Rtted Curve , H2 = 0.68 1.111 lnstiMe of Transportation Engineers -c ; :~ ~.,.._..-:....-~--_.~----.--~. -. -.. -Hospital (610) e :-1' ;! ,. i ~l :.\ ;.j Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds . On a: Weekday, . Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. .r .1 Number of Studies: 8 Average Number of Beds: 483 . Directional Distribution: 36% entering, 64% exiting r- 'J ':1 :,~ ~1 .! Trip Generation per Bed. Average Rate 1.30 Range of Rates 0040 2.28 .Standard Deviation 1.24 ~1 Data Plot and Equation .,'. :C' 1,400 x --. ~ ~. , 1.300 - - . - - - - - - ~ . . ~ - - - . - . - . . - - - . . . ---.------.-----.-...-------.----..-----.---..----... . ' . . -,'. 1,200 . . . --...---.-..----....--.........-.--....-.....-...... . , . . ,il ;'{ '. 1,100 . - . - - - - - . . - . -.. - - . - - - . - - . - - ~ - - - . - - - . . - - - ~ . . - - - - . - . - - - :~i ", I . . . . ' 1.000 - -....... - - -, - -.......... .... - - - -. - - - -. '.- - - - - -... -' - ',' -........ - -., - - -. '..,-..-"- - -- ,/ '" '0 C w. d.. ~ " '0 :c " > " 0> e! " ~ II I-- 900 _uu__up.u_uu__ . . ." /..... - - - - -,-' - - - - . - - - - - -,'" - - - - - -....;... -... ~_..-'" : .. -. ... -x:- -- 800 pp____pu________. - - - - ~. - - -.- . . . - ,. . . .:. . - . . . . . - - - ~~~............:'" - - - . - - . - - ~ - - - - - - - - - . . . ..:<~~ - -,_... -........, - -.... - - -- -. : x "700 - - - -.. + - - - - -. - - -. . . 600 -. +. + +. - - - - -; - - - +.... ,. + - .,.. - - - - + x _ . _:;< - - __ . . . - - - - .:. . . - - . . u - . - - c - - u P - - - - -- 500 . - - - - + -;.. + -: - + . + ... ~;.:.--::;-~- - - - - -- - -. - -. .:.. . +. +.. - - - - .:. - - - - - - . - -.. -; +. +. - -:. -. - - + : ! , ..-,-, ' . .- 400 . + - - - - - +.. + ..:......+ . -. - +.. +...- - +. -. - - - -.. -+' +. - - -.. -.. - .'- - - ... - -.... +. -. +.. +.. - -.- -. ---~-- : . : , . : : :. . 300 - - - +., - . - -.. + +... - -,- + - -.- - - - - - - - -,............ -.-' -. - - +.. - ~. -.. - + +... -..... x ., ,j 200 ..---+.-...-.----..---+.--'-.-.-----+.-.'--------.+..-.......+...+.-. . ' . ' x 100 _-'_._ ._........__ ._~____..200_'__ . 300 .:..~. 400 500 600_ 700 800 . x ~ Number of Beds X Actual Data Points Rtted Curve ------ A:verage_Rate . Filled Curve Equation: T = 1.42(X} - 54.39 fl' " 0.60 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1112 Institute of Transportation Engineers I I . . '~n_~_~_~___n______--'-------""';--~:-7::MedjGa'~DentaIOffice Build ing (720) . I Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area . Weekday Number of Studies: 10 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 45 Directional Dil3tribution: .50% entering, 50% exiting [ . Trip Generation per 1000 Sq;Feet Gross Floor Area . Average Rate . Range of Rates 36.13 :13.16- 50,51 Standard Deviation 10.18 Data Plot and Equation S;OoO , e 4.000 . . ------._____.i;'....................<...........__.. __._....,.. '. '" X /<-,//': ... . . . .. ..... < . .... ....... ... ."./~// ..... ..... .... . ... . -....;. -. - - -; - - -.. -:.. :. - _.:. - - -x- ~. '.. :'..:. -." - "~' _. _ _ .;.. _ _ _ _.;. _ _. . _ ~ ... _ _.:. _. ..,. .,.,,:" U) '0 c: W 0- F m (; .iE. m >. " .0> "'. a; > <(. II I-- 3,000 2,000 1. 1.000 . .. - . -~- .. - - - ( ~..-.:,~- ~~ -- x -~ - x.. - - ~ ,- . . . . -:. . - -- . ~ -- -- - - i- _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ : _ , _ _ _ _ n,_ . _ __ _ .' /. X .........- . .;...... >): o ...._~-_..-._,,--.._~~. .-.-........_._~~_..~. ~"-'-'''-'~-''---.' o 10 20 ~, 30 . - --..-.--. 40 so 60 70 so 90 100 110 120 x= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross RoorArea X Actual Data PO!nls Fitied Curve ------ Average Rate e Fitted Curve Equation: T = 40.89(X) _ 214.97 R2 = 0.90 Trip Generation, 7th EditioQ 1190 Institute of Transportation" EngineerS .. ':-MediGaI;..gentat:-Office Building (720) e . Average. Vehicle Trip Ends vs: .100Q,sq. Fe~t .Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 21 :::;}8;j;":~ Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 39 . '",iof~jI:l:; ,. .. . m . Directional Distribution: 79'7'0 entering, 21 % exiting .f..'~J"""':';."""--- c. . :'''7i~t:::~'.+rj(i'~~neration per 1000 Sq. Feet GrossFloor Area . ,. Average. Rate . Range of Rates, Standard Deviation ~"' .'! '~f?7F ,;.'.{."0 r.. '-0;- . ~~~~.~. . y:.~' ..! '_';," _ 0- L\:.,<,'j.". , ." (0 .. 0), "CIS" t~~::..~:~ fI~~:~.. . ~:^'f"" ~-::~. .j' : t.. ,. 2.48 . 0.85 4.79 1.94 300 .' , , . , ,///' .............~... . ... . . .:. .. . . . ~ . '.' .. .:.. . . . .:. . . . . .: . . . ..:.: .)(. . :. .>;~~: . . . .:. . .. . . ~. . .. ..:.. . . .. .-~/ :x' , , ...,,; . ....~...-...... .../< ~ X '/~'" . . . . "....."... : ~ . , . . ' 100 -.... ",- - - -.., - -. -. ",.. - - - - -('"" - - -:. - .," ",- - - - - -; - -.. - -,- -. + - - -,- -.. -'; - - - - - -,.... -. /x x' , . . .: ./,,, x X. x ,/ x : >s,,/x :........ . /'~ X ~/... x' e 200 'x x x x' x 10 30 40 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 50 20 x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area. x " Actual Qata Points ------ -Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2_=**,!,* e {'Trip Generation 71h Ed't' __.'_ ._A__ _._ _ _ ~ lion :?':'",,-: 1191 Institute of Transportation Engineers ~ -.._~-- _:,,:--,~-~""-'->-.<,~.Med icaJ,..Oental.Office Sui Iding. (720) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs:. On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area . . Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Slreet Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 41 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 30 .OirilctionaJ Distribution: 27% entering, 73% exiting Trip Generation per 1000Sq, Feet Gro$sFloQr Arr~a Average Rate Range of Rates. 3.72 0.97 8.86 standard DeviatiOn. . 2.50 r~ pata Plot and Equation -~- 500 J e j ! .400 . ., ,/' . . . - - .', - - - - - . . . ~ - - . '. . - . . - .' - . . - . .. ~ - . - - X-;" + 'x - - . . . + - - .'. - - . ': - ~ . . - - - - ;...~~;;".,,, -:- - . . "'....;""..: -' ..."......": ------- .-...--.........:'.. . .....................; ................~.... :x o 0 : x /<'<....;.....-:......-:......;......;. .... -; - .. - - -ii. - - - .. ',. - - .......<..... .;:i( x: ,;./ x o 0' x . x ..,....-<" . . x . -,' . 100 ......;... ~)(:... /.'. /Xx-~" , x ~"'o:/ x~ . .. x: o 0 --..---........-.. o 0 -!. i ., '" ,fi "- ~ '" <3 ~ '" 0> l!' '" " <<: II r- .~ '7"-',.-" x 200 .~ , .".. . . . 0 0 --....--..,....--..---....--.... " ,. x oX X :~ o P 10 2Q ~, ~~~~.--.....---- -,-.-........-.~~----_.'-.._---- ~o <!O 50 60 70 80 ~o 100 "110 120 x = 1000,sq. Feel Gross Floor Ar~a X A~WilI pa41 P-Qints Fitted Curve ------ Avera,~ Aa~ . Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(l) = 0.iJ;l Ln(X) .,. 1.47 R2=0.n Trip Genef?,(jon, 711) !'dilion 1192 Inst~u1e of Transportation 81gineers I I ;. ; APPENDIX E CUMULATIVE PROJECTS ANALYSIS e e lJNscOTT, LAw & GREENSPAH. engineers >- llGRef.34I-1403 ,., Temecula Medical Center N.\14C!3~-sed-Rp!\Re'o;<ed-Tbls\A~ CoverI'agel-dN: . TABLE 3 OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION Peak Hour I AM PM Land Use Quantity Units 1 In Out In Out Daily .- ~ u.. , TeinectilaSeni6rCare Facility . .Retirement.Com.munity 210 DU 17 19 32 25 693 ^ . Congregate Care 121 DU 5 2 12 8 ?60 1 . Medical Office 34.9 TSF 68 17 35 93 1,261 , . Retention (10%) (9) (4) (8) (13) (221) i , Subtotai 81 34 71 113 1,993 , . .. Residential Condo " of. 14 . 469; 2 . i . Retention (10%) . \~. ~~J . .,.\~' .~ ~~:~t Map No. 30180 - -~~ i I . Shopping Center 104 TSF 100 63 309 335 6,991 "j 3 . Pass-'By (30%) (30) (19) (93) (101) (2,097) . Retention (10%) (to) (6) . (31) (34) (699) ! , Subtotal . 70 44 216 234 4,894 Temecula Creek . 'Apartments 400 DU 36 152 152 80 2,636 . Office. 30.0 .TSF 63 9 19 94 527 4 . Commercjal Reta~ 93.0 TSF 122 . 78 360 389 8,237 . IhtemidCapture (10%) (22) (24) (53) (56)'. (1,140) I . Retention (10%) . (22) (24) (53) (56) (1,140) . Subtotal 177 191 425 451 9120 VaURancl:!Towne Center .. . . Office . 51 . TSF 96 13 23 117 792 , i . Specialty Reta~ 84.15 TSF 61 40 93 125 3,422 L 5 . HIgh-Tum Over Restaurant 5 TSF 24 22 33 : .22 652 . Fast Food Restaurant wI Drive Thru 5 TSF 127 122 87 80 2,481 . ~ss-By (20%) (42) (37) (43) (45) (1,311) I . 'Retention (10%) (31) (20) (24) .(34) . (735) . Subtotal 235 140 . 169 265. 5,301 Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 i 6 . $ingle-Family Detached Residential 243 DU 46 136 158 87 . 2,326 I . Retention (10%) (5) (14) . (16) (9) (233) , Subtotal , 41 122 142 78 2093 Tentative Tract Map No~ 29031 . i. 7 . Single-Family Detached Residential 128 DU 24 72 83 46 1,225 . Retention (10%) (2) . (7) (8) (5) (123) . Subtotal 22 65 75 41 1102 Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 , . Single-Family Detached Residential. 122 DU 23. 68 79 44 1,168 .l;l,... ; -,. .. ~ 'Retention'(10%)--- "'. ....--.- . '- ..- ~ ,. (2) (7) . (8) (4) (117) . Subtotal 21 61 71 40 1,051 i High School . I 9 . High School 2600 STU 832 364 156 234 4,654 . Retention (10%) (83) (36) (16) (23) (465) . Subtotal 749 328 140 211 4,189 j:\rktables\rk1300\lk1386lb 3-12 U'.!-~ , , IJ I' iJ TABLE 3 e OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION . U . Peak Hour I . AM PM Land Use Quantity Units 1 In. I Out In but . Daily ~,~a.. .~ ~~10 . Single-Family Detache ,.,,, . DU 72 ~'n 3,589 . R . ".~o . V) \"') ~ (359) . ~11 . Margarita Canyon ' . Commerl:ial Retail 1 SITE 1.12 ~ 72 352 381 . 7;909 . Retention (10%) (11) . (7) (35) . (38) (791) .I . Subtotal 101 65 317 343 7;118 ~.. Rancho Community Church. . . private School (K-12) . 700 STU 385 259 56 84 1,261 . Preschooi .. . 100 STU 43 38 40 46 452 ~12 Church 32.783 . TSF 13 11 12 10 299 . Commercial Strip 16 AC 110 70 270 270 6,000 . Retention (10%) (55) (38) (38) (41) (801) . ~.. . . Subtotal . 496. 340 . 340 369 . . 7,211 Wolf Creek , . . TAZ 3 (Single-Family Residential) 259 DU 49 145 168' 93 2,479 . TAt 4 (Single-Family Residential) 120 DU 23 fi7 78 43 1,148 ~13 . 'rAt 6 (Single-Family Residential) 236 DU 45 132 153 85 . 2,25 . Retention (10%) (12) (34) (4Q) (22) (58 .. Subtotal 105 310 359 199 .5,297 ~.X Morgan.HiD .' .. . .' Single-Family Detached ~esidential 463 . DU 88 259 301 167 4,431 . .EIementary School 700 STU 119 84. . 7 7 '714 L14 . Day Care Center. . 11 TSF 74 66 . 68 77 872 . Park ' 7 . AC - _. - - 16 '. Retention (10%) . (28) . . (41) . (38) (25) (603) II . Subtotal: . . . :253 368 338 226 5430 ~. ~k Town Center ., - }' . . station. 16 PUMPS 100 96 119 2,697 ,.1 15 . CommerClQ' . 430. TSF 232 .. ..Hi 856 11,415.. L ' Retention.(10%) . <0.' '971 (2,011) !' .,.; . ~.. u.;~o. .." (66) (49) . (182) . (194) , ".y" ---...) J y , 24182. , 188 DU. 36 105 122 ,,'.. i 16 . . Retention \ 'U FO } :: l12) (7)1 (180) .. II . TIM 24188 291 . DU 55 163 189 105 2,785 r 17 . . Retention (10%) (6) (16) (19) (10) (278) I . SUbtotal 49 147 170 95 2,501 ". .. -'-.-Paloma'de~Sol- --~75 .TSF ., 131 18 .28 136 1,064 ; - .. ~ : 18 . . Retention (10%) (13) . (2) (3) (14) (106) Lrc' Subtotal . 118 16 25 122 !!58 OTAL. . 2,852 2,714 3,851 3,661 77,614 L L. ~ ~\rktables'rk13lXl1r1<1386tb .IN'1~a...n?J\1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = DwelUng Units AC = Acres STU = Students e 1-13 , f' EXHIBIT? A PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES I I I 0- J , , ~. engine~ring _ '. ~. group, me. I j. ._-"._--_.~-_._..._--- ------- ~-_._-~.__._..~ _._-_.~ ....-.. -- I I. .; , ; l". I - I L I .1 I. I 1309-02-01-EX 7A APIS PlAZA, Riverside County..CaUfol'T}la <-A 1 , J EXHIBIT 7B . . . U---~---'-:-----~fROJEC1PM'PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES e U . ~.. L ~.... L\ 11 I % L .~ L L L.- t L L L ~ .. ... . . . ~..,.....,.,~.,....,~..,~~-~~--~-_...._-_.-._-,------_._. I I J I N 1309-02-01.EXjB 1. APIS PLAZA. Riverside County, California e Iim engine~ring group, mc. 3-9 D ~. o EXHIBIT 9A ---~--_._---'~----'---TEMECULA SENIOR CARE FACILITY. TRIP DISTRIBUTION II I.J W- L L'. L , . L.______?:5 _~ L ~ ~;. ..- L ~. LJ . eN '1309-02-01~EX_9A' ~. ~.. APIS_:~:"""id<> County. CaJff0mi3 MEADOWS - PKWY. ~~N" 'NY. RD_ MARGARJTh RD. ,.... ",'---' -~-_.. ------_._'--..~-------- "'-.-.-. LEGEND: -1a.=:PERGENH9IFR()M-PR()JEGT~.~-----'-~__._~_.._ .__. . 3-15 ~e.rigine~ring. _ ~group, me. ill I :1 !1 '~. , . , i fl.. I. EXHIBIT 9C TENTA riVE TRACT MAP 30180 TRIP DISTRIBUTION e ~fEN/>. WY. MEADOWS PI<MIY. RD. '" MARGARITA RD. JEDEDIIiH SMITH RD. AVENIDA DE MISSIONE.S C t' [..... r r r ..1 .J l N 1309-02-01-EX~9C [. APIS P'I"l!'- RIverside County. Callfomla . LEGEND: -10 =PER6EN-T--T0IFRGM-PROJEGT 3-17 rim . engine~ring group, me. j I . ) , I ei ,~__,___,_~~_,,,,,_~.,.'_"_ .v~,.. _ _-.". . EXHIBIT 90 TEMECULA CREEK TRIP DISTRIBUTION c"' I'. r"': i ! <I:!:N" WI'.. L!> ~ L.... MEADOWS PKWY. I L RD. <, MARGARIJt. RD. ! ""i. , ; I .1. I I I . I J J J 1 1 ) I J LEGEND: . . 10 = PERCENT TO/FRciM PROJECT 1309-02-01-8<_90 MIS PLAZA. RiVerside Gountv, California ..Iim . ~~9~~;1~i~g . . 3-18 Ii ,1-. -fl.. :/ --- n ______._ ___....._ .__...__... . . ... EXHIBIT 9E - --- . VAIL RANCH TOWNE SQUARE. TRIP DISTRIBUTION e MEADOWS PKWY. (I:€NI>. \IVy' .f> MARGAR~ RD. __~..__h .__ _,__________. ...____.~__~..._. . ,___"__ .-. [- r fl l l'~ fl L r [, (- -:1-- l I J I N 1 1309-02-d1-EX_9E .I : _ ~~~~~~e~~~ ~~~ ,~~ifornla 'LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT. e 3-19 . ~. engine~ring LAW group, me. . c...., .- . [ i ; ,J I I j eN - . .. .,-,.'....-.-,- --~~--~...,.... ..~~.~- ,'.,-,' J .".__,,_,,~~~.~~~,~~~_ I (-', j; , c---' Ii I r r 6 [ r , I .. -y._._---~_.,..,.. .....,- EXHIBIT 9F . TENT A rIVE TRACT MAP 29473 TRIP DISTRIBUTION / " (€EN" WY. MEADOWS PKWY. _._.~ .--,- -"---..- ... '~"."-. JEOEOIAH . SMITH RD; . .~.5 I ............ ~...-... --L ~ ..-.........:.....~. . ... '" @.. 'i,5.. I I , ! LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TOIFROM PROJECT 1309-<J2-1l1-EX 9F. API$ PLAZA. Rfverside CQUnty, CaJjfornla . 3-20 RO, GOLF 11 CQURSE.DR. -<l~ ~1~ @-, , .i j 1 t r ~ 1 I L ~ engine~ring ----'--..'. ~ group, mc. ! . . I, fl n n ~ .~ ------ r r:--.----~-:.----.- . ~ . .-.--- --.. - -- .--- -- -- . -------- - - - - . ."--.., - ..-" r- r-- f;-c' r-:___ ..__._____n r r' r~~-.~~~: .': -~.":;. r -c- ..-- -- -- --.... r--~ r I~ 130~-02"01-EX_9G. _ I APIS~~: R;y:;"" \,,,,nly. ca,"o~~ .. EXHIBIT 98 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29031 TRIP DISTRIBUTION e {.<:ENA WY. MEADOWS . PKWY. . RD. MARGARII!\ RD. . , JEDEDiAH SMITH RD. LEGEND: . . 10~PERe.eNT-T01fRe5M.PRG;lEe'f 3-:21 um e engineeril1g _ group, inc. .' -.~ -." .~ '":-'-~'--'------~'-:--~;-~---~~ .-C:'~-::'~~~dE:t~- -- .:..C- .. j""'--..".,..,..-"----:':""-:-=::~- ~~-- ~."':-.-~ ., ____~ ""0-"--.., .:-:~.,-:-::;,;:~: ----:::":-,,:' '::~.:--:::'.'.<,.:--;.. .. 0" '___, ~_"_~'._ '-.- - '.~. - . -EXHIBIT 9H --=-fENTATIVE-TRACT MAP 30052 TRIP DISTRIBUTION . - . I. . "!EMECULA --. ~--~ ..-- ~ '. ...- . .-............... MEADows PK!NY. <l:/i'NI>- WY. 6 RD. JEDEDiAH SMITH RD, LEGEND: . 10 = PERCENT TOIFROM PROJECT , i i l J N 1309-02-01-EX_9H APIS PlAZA,. Riverside County,CalifOrnia . \ ! 3-22 Ilm engine~ring group, Inc. - ;;';":'Pv:- 1 I [1 L [1 11 U . EXHIBIT91 HrGffSCHOOL, - --. . .- TRIP DIST~IBUTION e (E'E:Nf>. WY. -rl- -. ! I' ~7 L\ [: ~- ... -. . --- ..-. . _ --------- ---- ---- -. [: l ,.- - ~.. L .--::-~------~--. , L C--.. [' [ C-- l J l N 1309-Q2..o1.EX 91 t __:'5 .P1:^:::S;d~~n~. cm_ MEADOWS Pt<:oNY. RD. MARGAR~ RD. . . JEDEOIAH SMITH RO; . "-...:. - . LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT ToiFROM PROJECT 3-;<3- ~ LiW .. e engme~rmg _ group; mc. . . [ [ [ . ~ ['...... ..~.. ~~._--~-_?!J..~ . . ,....~.."..~. 0" f [ [ [ l LJ 9~....... 1309:;'2-Ol':EX.9K ..... I. APlSPLAZA, RNe'sid: ~~nly~~lifOmia ........- .. ..~.. ~~ . t1 \ . i . !. , C' ,. I n ""'""'"""---.. [' ~---::::--.-. \0 LEGEND: -_.-........._,_.._.-~... _...~_.._.._. ,-- -. EXHIBIT 9K . MARGARITA CANYON TRIP DISTRIBUTION MEADOWS PIWIY. ~~EN[" WI'.. JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. 10 = PSU;'Errr-TOlFRO/JrPRIT.1EC I "---'. 3-25 um engine~ring . group, me. - __~___._u EXHIBIT 9L RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH. CHURCH AND SCHOOL TRIP DISTRIBUTI. .~-_.".-..,- MEADOWS PKWY. < RD. MARGARITA RD. .. ..~_.,.~--_._-----------~ - JEDEDIAH SMITH-RD. ..~ 40 e LEGEND:. 10 = PERCENT TOIFROM PROJECT ~ 1309-02-Q1-EX_9L . _~f.@~~!,,!~,:!egwnty.Caljfornia 3-26 e . .. .<:;_.,;;.~~.:.j~~9~~~T~~g - .. ~'j0~}~rY;:~~:~~~1f~1!~::~;:c;~ N j V L D [J [J w L:L q--~-~~C::~:~''f~IFR0MPROJECT'-~. C .I 9N 1309-02-01-8C9M I.J APIS plAzA, RIve<Slde Counly,C.lifomia a . o (-! j EXHIBIT 9M . . RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH. . : ,COMMERCIAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION f" U' 0: . ! MEADOWS PKWY. . <E'EN!', WY. RD, MARGARI18 RD. JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. .' ..'" 3-27 ~. engine~ring LiW group, mc. . __._ ~_,.,..._,__,_.~..--o-_~""""'--_' p.-...--_.....- '- "'''~~-.' ..., . .... c .~. ......._ "- ",.' '.~' .-,"-,'.P' ...,.. . ,EXHIBIT 91 WOLF CREEK TAl : TRIP D1STRIBUTIOr e (~ENI'< WY.. MEADOWS PI<JNY. RD. jEDEDlAH SMITH RD. . 1'.. IElJIECl!Y' .:.-...-1.....~...- " . 'GOLF. COURSE DR. .. .-<l~ .~~ . "" . '" . ..::~ e LEGEND: 10 = PERCENT TOIFROM PROJECT J ~engine~ring. e LiWgroup,.mc. N 1309-02-01-8C9N APIS PLAZA. Riverside Coonty, California 3-28 o .- [ [ [ '__"~.._~.__, '.__._n,_. . ".'. ... ---'_._--'~... -~._.-.~ .--- EXHIBIT 90 WOLF CREEKJAZ4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION (€l;NA. WY. [ [ e L [ l [ [ L__,~.- l .1 1309-02..o1-EX_90 lAPIS PlAZA, Riverside County, California MEADOWS PKWY. RD, J MARGARIJ!- RD: JEDEDIAH SMITH RD. GOLF . COURSE DR. ""~ .1L\~ ~7~ .. LEGEND: . .... --10.=-PERCENFFO/FR0M PROJECT--..:-_.-.._. ._.. 3-29 ~ engine~ring ~ group, me, ---._----~-.-----_.._. EXHIBIT 9P WOLF CREEK T AZ..i. TRIP DISTRIBUTI. ~I:ENJ>. WY; . MEADOWS PKWY. . RD. MARGARI!.^ RD. JEDEDIAH .. SMITH RD. . .~.. e GOLF _. COURSE DRC ""~ .~"'1y~ .L.g~~J'l!Q; _._ 10 = PERCENT TOIFROM PROJECT i N 1309-02-01-8< gp APIS PlAZA. Riverside County'-Califomia e 3-30 ~ engineering ~. group, inc. . 11 ---- .- i1" I t1 ; ~ EXHIBIT 9Q MORGAN HILL TRIP DISTRIBUTION F: , MEADOWS PKWY. ~E:EN" WY. r 1.'0 f r r . f ,. r r t L. [ J ~N 1309-02-D1-EX_9Q [ APlS PlAZA. Rlve<s;de County. CaHfomia RD. MARGARIJ!. RD. ~ ~t ;s:x. ,..<- CJ LEGEND: . ...'.'Hf;PERCENTT07FROfVI PROJECT.'. 3-31 tim engine~ring group, inC. lL_n_~~__ .n . n I 1 n EXHIBIT9U TTM 24188 TRIP DISTRIBUTION e " n , ,. I" '1.5 . {€EN Wy, r: If'" '\ -<\ . ..... .1{;. r. ~ . ~ r r l'- c I I' [' f _nn _ . .n. ~:~~~:~"TO/FROMPROJECT [ J I N 1309-02-01.EX 9U tAPIS PlAZA. Rjve<slde County, Car"""ni. MEADOWS PKWY. RD. MARGARITA RD. .JEDEDIAH .. SMITH. RD. . .~. 3-35 r:-mI.. . engineering LAW group; inc. e EXHIBIT 9V PALOMA DEL SOL OFFICE TRIP DISTRIBUTION.. ^' '" MEADOWS PKWY. l: MARGARlI!\ RD. '" . ~-'''---....... ". . ~. .............. "'. \\ LEGEND: .. .... .~-t(J=PERCENTFROM.PROJECT . J N 3-36 I:im engine~ring group; mc. I L 1309-02-01-EX 9V APIS PLAZA. Riverside County, California i I. ' i I L i I ! I ! I I . I il I I. . i ~~- \. a. i ~ ~~ o z ~r r~ei (]) ::;;'2: . ::>.w _ ..J o. .::l o'<;! . rT\t;): > 0 .~'l.. ~ i5 lL. ~~. . J::5 It ~ a ~ ~ w _ a.i:'l ii I-, :; .::;; ~ ~ ~ . .~,:t,o,,," ~ " ..... ..-.- ~ "w E5 ,,-- -t)' . ~'" OJ ,,~ ",& oc J::-- ~~ g~ a..~ o. ii:c .,......." i I -1 fi!. ~ . . ~~~:'. . - ;;,: ......,.i.....:\. :.~..k:. . ,..:f'. ;:..::~'r.j ,.: ),'_Y'~' ' -. .,' .' , ,'; . " :,~ : " ; .j,F' .!." ".; ;-" '1" . .;:." 1~ it. "., " , ~ ..... ~'" , 1~,.tg15 e e e e . Appendix E Burrowing Owl Survey Report . amecf3 e TEMECUlA HOSPITAL SITE [City of Temecula, northwest of the SH 79 I Margarita Street intersection, in (projected) Section 17, Township 8 South, Range 2 West, U.S.G.S. 7.5' Pechanga, Calif. quadrangle] Focused Surveys for the Burrowing Owl Prepared for: Universal Health Services 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia PA 19406-0958 (610) 768-3300 fax (610) 992-4560 . Contact: Mr. Don Pyskacek Prepared by: AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 (909) 369-8060 FAX (909) 369-8035 Principal Investigator: Chet McGaugh AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. chetmcgaugh@amec.com Surveys conducted on: August 1, 2, 5, & 9, 2005 Report date: August 9, 2005 . . Universal Health Services BUITO\Mng Qv.A Surveys T emecula Hospital Site ame& TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background Information ........................................................................................ 4 2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 4 3.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... S 4.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................S LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Temecula Hospital Site Burrowing Owl Surveys. ........................................................4 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1. Temecula Hospital Site (view west; State Highway 79 is upper left). ............................. 3 LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Temecula Hospital Site: Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys...................................3 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Bird List for the Temecula Hospital Site...... ..................... ..........................6 e e e e . . Universal Health Services Burrowing Owl Surveys Temecula Hospital Site ame& Temecula Hospital Site Focused Surveys for the Burrowing Owl 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Universal Health Services, focused surveys for the Burrowing Owl (Athene cun/cularia) were conducted by AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. (AMEC) at the Temecula Hospital Site. The thirty-six (36) acre project site is located in the City of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County, northwest of the intersection of State Highway 79 and Margarita Street, in (projected) Section 17, Township 8 South, Range 2 West of the U.S.G.S. Pechanga, Calif. quadrangle (Map 1). The topography of the site is essentially flat; elevations are ;!:1,050 feet Surrounding land use is residential, commercial, and undeveloped open space. Most of the site is vegetated with nonnative grasses, weedy mustards and ragweeds, and nonnative tamarisk trees (Photo 1). Photo 1. Temecula Hospital Site (view west; State Highway 79 is upper left). Temecuta Hospital BUOW 2 - ~IJnal (ir .--. ~ /,/ i q ... J/ ... // : 4- .- /, .. & .;. .~.~ .~ Map 1. Temecula Hospital Site: Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys ~ Project & Survey Site cb o 1065 FEET amec!! Map Source: USGS 7.5' Pechanga Quad. e . . Universal Health Services Burrowing Owl Surveys T emecula Hospital Site ame& 1.1 Background Information The Burrowing Owl is a small, ground-dwelling owl that lives, as its name implies, in burrows. It typically occupies the burrows of small mammals, and only rarely excavates its own. It also may use pipes, culverts, and other enclosed spaces. It is active both day and night, and may perch conspicuously on fenceposts, or stand at the burrow entrance. Due to the uniquely fossorial habits of Burrowing Owls, nest burrows are the critical component of their habitat. In southern California, Burrowing Owls are found in relatively arid, open areas, including fallow agricultural lands and the edges of actively farmed lands, airports, vacant lots, grasslands, and desert scrub. In spite of tolerance of human activity "California's Burrowing Owl population is clearly declining and, if declines continue, the species may qualify for listing" (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 1995). The declines in Burrowing Owl populations are atrributed to loss and degradation of habitat, to ongoing residential and commercial development, and to rodent control programs. The Burrowing Owl has been designated a Species of Special Concern by CDFG, and is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the CDFG Code. 2.0 METHODS All focused Burrowing Owl surveys at the Temecula Hospital Site were performed by AMEC ornithologist Chet McGaugh in August 2005. (see Table 1). Table 1. Temecula Hospital Site Burrowing Owl Surveys. -~~:~~E---+~:-~z~~~~~- ---6~~~~6:-~~tf~~-~;~~~~~~; ~~I~'----._" .. ~-;;gust~~:-~I ~. M~Gaugh - -0520-081~ci~ar~ ~-;;;~ -- .... --. .... ... . .JI.~\l.U:~!J....__~~_r.'I.c:C3.~~.9h. 0510-0829_L~e~r~_c:~~rn_ __....____....__.._ No ______..______. .__ ..mm_._ No - _._-------- No No In accordance with survey protocol established by CDFG, the site was surveyed four times. During each of the surveys, transects were walked back and forth across the site as the surveyor searched for Burrowing Owl sign (burrows, pellets, scat, feathers, prey remains, eggshell fragments) and watched and listened for Burrowing Owls and other birds. Temecuta Hospital BUOW 4 Universal Health Services BurroVv'ing ON! Surveys Temecula Hospital Site ame& 3.0 RESULTS Burrowing Owls were not seen on any of the four focused surveys. Neither burrows or any other sign of Burrowing Owl presence was found. Although thirty-three (33) species of birds were observed during the focused surveys, most were associated with the residential areas and the riparian and riparian/scrub habitats on the east side of the site. Avian use of the nonnative grassland on the site is very limited. The ongoing presence of Red-tailed Hawks and American Kestrels indicate suitable foraging habitat is present, but only Common Ravens and Rock Pigeons were seen feeding in the grassland. 4.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, 7th ed. Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington, D.C. California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff report on Burrowing Owl mitigation. CDFG, Sacramento, CA. Haug, E.A, BA Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union. Temecula Hospital avow e e . 5 e . . Universal Health Services Burrowing Owf Surveys Temecula Hospital Site APPENDIX 1 BIRD LIST for the TEMECULA HOSPITAL SITE Ardeidae - Bitterns and Herons Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) Accipitridae - Kites, Hawks, and Eagles White-tailed Kite (Elan us leucurus) Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Falconidae - Falcons American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) Charadriidae - Plovers and Lapwings Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) Columbidae - Pigeons and Doves Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) (nonnative species) Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Picidae - Woodpeckers Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttaJ/iJ) Tyrannidae - Tyrant Flycatchers Black Phoebe (Sayomis nigricans) Say's Phoebe (Sayomis saya) Cassin's Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferus) Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) Corvidae - Jays and Crows American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Common Raven (Corvus corax) Aegithalidae - Long-tailed Tits and Bushtits Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) Troglodytidae - Wrens Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickil) House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) Temecula Hospital BUQW amecG 6 Universal Health Services Burrowing Owf Surveys Temecula Hospital Site ame& Turdidae - Thrushes Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) Mimidae - Mockingbirds and Thrashers Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) Sturnidae - Starlings European Starling (Stumus vulgaris) [nonnative species] Parulidae - Wood-warblers Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) Emberizidae - Towhees and Sparrows Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) California Towhee (Pipilo crissalis) Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Cardinalidae - Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Buntings Black-headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus) Blue Grosbeak (Passerina caerulea) Icteridae - Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, Grackles, and Orioles Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus aiel) Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus) Fringillidae - Finches and Goldfinches House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria) American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) Temecula Hospital BUOW e e e 7 e . Appendix F Letter from Project Architect Regarding Project Configuration . e e . HI<S DAVID E. PRUSHA AlA ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAl ~~c 4th ~/Vb> '622 ",<;0 200j August 8, 2005 Mr. Jeff Henderson P&D Consultants 800 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 270 Pasadena, California 91101 Re: Temecula Hospital Southwest Healthcare System HKS Project #8693.000 Dear Jeff: The new hospital project planned for Highway 79 South and Margarita Road has been questioned as to its requirement to be six stories in height as opposed to something less. To address the reasons for why we need a six-stOry bedtOwer, it requires a discussion on the design concepts ,relating to departmental adjacencies, efficiencies in stacking MEP systems, and the impractical nature of adding additional stories to an existing facility in seismic zones: The T emecula Valley is currently served by two hospitals, Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Medical Center, both part of the Southwest Healthcare System. Both facilities regularly operate at above 90% capacity for their average daily census. This, coupled with the consistent growth of the Temecula Valley, has dictated our need for the initial construction of a 170-bed hospital. Smaller communities that have exceeded their growth potential might support a hospital of smaller nature_ By contrast, with the T emecula area, continued growth is expected in the short and long term, suPPOrting the need for the initial 170 beds and, further supporting the anticipated need for the expansion to the planned build-out of 320 beds as the hospital establishes itself as a healthcare center in the community. Depanmental Adjacencies The basic design of " hospital originates with the functional program. Decisions about design are predicated on the philosophy that form follows function. With that in mind, departmental adjacencies become a driving force in establishing the form of a building. Once the need for the number of beds is established as a parameter of design, relationships between in-patients, out-patients, hospital staff and hospital visitOrs are studied. Primary relationships are established between. the Emergency Departments and Imaging, between Emergency Departments and Surgery and between all three departments and the patient rooms: The patient flow functions in the horizontal capacity between ER, Imaging and Surgery while the patient How from these departments to the patient rooms functions in the vertic.! capacity. To simplify, out-patient flows tend to be horizontal within the building; in-patient flows tend to be vertical. 1919 McKINNEY AVENUE DAllAS, TX 75201-1753 214.969.5599 "AX 214.969_3397 Mr. Jeff Henderson August 8,2005 The form that grows out of these ideas is a large single level floor so ER, Imaging and Surgery can - accommodate the correct adjacencies. Additionally, loading dock functions, materials management, ., dietary and environmental services are all areas that have primary relationships to first floor functions. Departments like administration, human resources and education are also located on the first level to enable access from the public while maintaining secured areas on the non-public side of the hospital. Specific to the Temecula hospital, our "form" requires approximately 165,000 square feet of area on the first level for all the functions of the horizontal circulation. For vertical flows, the function defines the form in the following ways. Patient rooms are designed in rhythmic, stacking order, similar to a hotel. This enables stacking efficiencies in the design discussed in detail below. When one considers that typical bed floors operate most efficiently at 34-38 patient rooms per floor, for our initial construction of 170 beds, the program dictates five floors of patient rooms, thereby defining the form of the 6-story bedtower. Additionally, the governing body for ho>pilal construction and permit approval ill the state, The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), mandates specific criteria for design that dictates how the bedtower is treated. The state limits the distance staff can travel from a nurse station to the patient room to ninety feet which in turn has an effect on how large a bed floor can design and still maintain practical efficiency. The state mandates nurse to patient staffing ratios that also effect the potential size of the tower. And finally, the state code requires that patient rooms shall have an exterior window. With 170 beds, the amount of exterior wall needed to ensure that code requirements are met dictates multiple levels of patient floors. All these items provide the orchestrated measures that effect how the form of the bedtower is driven. After establishing the need for a multi-level bedtower, the location of the hospital tower is determined _ by how the tower relates to internal functions. The key criteria for locating the bedtower is dictated ., by the proximity of core departments (i.e. ER, Imaging, Surgery) to the service elevators which relates directly to the transport time of the patient. In the design of the T emecula hospital, the core elevators are located centrally among the core departments, and further, actually central to the first level floor plate. Optimum patient transfer efficiency is achieved with the central core. Stacking MEP Systems For a hospital to function properly, every effort must be made to consider efficiency in the design of the mechanical and electrical systems throughout the facility. A key element to this efficiency is a concept used not only in healthcare building design, but is a basic int1uence in the design in most all multiple story building types. The concept is the stacking of the plumbing and mechanical systems vertically through the building. Electrical and data closets are located in the same location on each floor for efficient distribution of the branch services. As with the electrical, the plumbing systems stack vertically through the building with multiple rooms backing up to the same plumbing stacks. In both cases, these efficiencies lead to less cost and faster construction, both of which lead to the ability to concentrate on the greater good of quality health care. If the hospital was designed with multiple shorter bedtowers, the efficiencies with systems are reduced, thereby increasing cost to the project with no benefit to the patient. Expansion Capabilities The ability to provide bed counts dictated by an immediate need and to expand those counts as needed with demographic growth would require continual construction of the hospital in order to keep up _ with demand. The inconveniences to the patients and staff created by the continual construction ., 2 e . . Mr.]eff Henderson August 8, 2005 would be endless under this scenario. Furthermore, experience indicates the seismic design requirements for structural systems will continue to make adding floors to existing buildings costly, inefficient and, in most cases, unfeasible. Based on these items, the 6-story bedtower design gives the hospital the best mix of patient beds to beds per floor, to convenience, to efficiency, and to constructibility. Anything less than 6.stories becomes a hardship to the viability of the facility. The program for the new T emecula Hospital was studied with respect to all the items outlined above as well as additional standards of care with respect to providing a design capable of serving the community with quality health care. To enumerate the vastness of the complexities in the design of a hospital would take volumes. I have discussed but a few. Specific to the Temecula facility, the height is dictated by program, departmental adjacencies, internal patient flows, mechanical efficiencies, and the application of practical experiences. I am available if you haye any questions. Best Regards, tlf~ David E. Prusha Project Manager cc: Mr. Don Pyskacek Mr. Jay Hornung Mr. Noel Barrick 3 e . Appendix G Water Supply Assessment prepared by Rancho California Water District . e RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT DRAFT S8 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT In Support of the TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER CITY OF TEMECULA . August 29, 2005 IN: 65-100147 Prepared by: Prepared for: RBF CONSUL liNG HKS, INC. 3536 Concours, Suite 220 Ontario, CA 91764 Mr. Ron Craig (909) 581-0196 1919 McKinney Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Mr. David Prusha (214) 969-5599 . Rancho California Water District- S8 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER S8 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT In Support of the TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER CITY OF TEMECULA e Purpose of Report Law Water Code section 10910 (also known as SB 610) requires a city or county that determines a project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment, except as otherwise specified. The bill requires the assessment to include, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights. and contracts. The bill prescribes a limeframe within which a public water system is required to submit the assessment to the city or county and authorizes the city or county to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the public water system to comply with requirements relating to the submission of the assessment. The bill requires the public water system, or the city or county, as applicable, if that entity concludes that water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, to submit the plans for acquiring additional water supplies. e The bill requires the city or county to include the water supply assessment and certain other information in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to the act. The Rancho California Water District produced this "Water Supply Assessment' (WSA) Report to meet the requirements of Water Code section 10910 in support of the City's consideration of the Temecula Medical Center in coordination with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report being prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project Description and Water Demand The subject project is located within the southwest portion of the City of T emecula, just west and northwest of the intersection of State Highway 79 and Margarita Road. The T emecula Medical Center is proposed to be developed on approximately 36 acres of existing undeveloped and/or transitional land use (Low density estate residential to Business Park/Industrial) land as shown on Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 details the proposed land use plan for the project. The plan provides for development of a Hospital, two Medical Office Buildings, one Fitness Center, and a Cancer Center. e H:\Pdata\651 00147\ADMIN\Water Assessment\Clty of Tern. 2 doc. DOC Page 1 of 10 912012005 e 11 0, ~ . " . f~ .u j ~ . , . ! " \ ! ~ i . ~ ;1 @) ~ n ... o 2 if a ;; ~ ~ " ~ c ;; ~ :3- n ~ m m m )> . ~ ~ ~ ~ o. " " " ~ ~ ,; ~ ~ 1: 0 . )> 1: . 0 < . ~ . . 5. ~ . 5. '" 0; 3 , 5. c ~. 3 a. 3 c " 3 3 ~ 0 <i. )> . ~ . g' ~ ..--.;1 "" ~~);[~j!~~^ ,;"", t o. 0' -,--'~"'''.....'''!'''..... '1J,',~;~~~~ill!,;'j' ~ ~ ~ il' :!. ~ " ~ .. " ~ " 3 . i: " 0 . . ~- " 1: . . <t ;0 , . . . ;0 . <t " . l[ ;0 ". . ~ ~ . . " 0 . ~ ~ "- 0: IIII " ~ '" ~ 0 c " . 3 " " ~ ~ 'n ~ .. il ~ 3 ~ " '" '" " "'. ;0 ;0 " m m 0 . " " . "l:l . . <t ~ ~ ., ![ ~ ;0 Q ::;: . . . c: ll> '" . (') ~. m "- ... " III ll> -n Co ,. ~~ " 0 0 ~ ~ ::; c ~ ~ '" ~ . = m " 0 5. Co en w w ~ ~ ~ ~ " . . . c:: 2 0 " ,. . . . '" en . ;> -l . iii z ll> ~ m 0 " , ::':: " ". ~ . . ~ ~ ~ !j; 0 i[ 0 Z < > ? -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --n--l I i! I'i ! "I ! Ii I 1 'i I I" II! I =! 1 1 Jil,!, _____J - I ~.----c 0 ~ II 11 I" IE ~ , ~I 1"1 . . .1, 0 I ... i "II ,.:Z: ,. !l' i ~ e .. ..~ ill . . . :l: ii :~ .. ~ .... ~ ,. II. !~ I!.I!!I~ .. r z Ir Ii" i i\" II · " I I 0 , lJl I I , n . I :D ~ 0 z Ii ;,'" "... ! ~ ~ :3 ;~ . . :i .. e i' ;' ;;: ,'" i 'il i.." --- t'ill I \J' ,':' .! ~"''''''~ . I I:)" ~ r ,.: I I'" II . , : '" . r ., ' ' '" : L'/v ., ....1.. !;~ i ,-- - ----- _ _ ! ~i!l ................n.......~ ~-$~~...~r~.iIH~*.$- "---: . "1ll!ll !Il '" , : : I \_____ H i 'i ! II~' :1;,: ' Jltii .e' .t}; ~ I i m' .' 0' ~ e I I 111w'II.'!!~!~~!I'ln~l!i~ 'AlIi!' 1,1,11, I,!I '- ~ 8~ !' II 5 ii r 1'\ ~I ~. ! V.I ' , i ~;t Z m3 c '2.CDn ~ SI: ~ -iij e . . Rancho California Water District-Se 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT TEMECUlA MEDICAL CENTER Project Applicability Law 10910. (a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part. 10912. For the purposes of this part, the following terms have the following meanings: Table 34"Project" means any of the following: Table 34A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than J ,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to. or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. Water Code section 10910 applies to the Project because the proposed complex exceeds the criteria set forth in 910912 (a)(l) in square feet and potential employment. Identification of Public Water System Law 10910. (b) The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system that is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as defined in Section 10912, that may supply water for the project. If the city or county is nol able to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, the city or county shall prepare the water assessment required by this part after consulting with any entity serving domestic waler supplies whose service area includes the project site. the local agency formation commission, and any public water system adjacent 10 the project site. The Rancho California Water District owns, operates and maintains the public wafer system within which the proposed project would reside and would be the water purveyor to the Project. H:\Pdata\65100147\ADMIMWater AssesSmenl\City of Tem. 2 doc.DOC Page 4 of 10 9120/2005 - Rancho California Water District - S8 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER e Schedule Law 10910. (g) (I) Subject to paragraph (2). the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was received. The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting. (2) Prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, if the public water system intends to request an extension of time to prepare and adopt the assessment, the public water system shall meet with the city or county to request an extension of time, which shall not exceed 30 days, to prepare and adopt the assessment. (3) If the public water system fails to request an extension of time. or fails to submit the assessment notwithstanding the extension of time granted pursuant to paragraph (2), the city or county may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body of the public water system to comply with the requirements of this part relating to the submission of the water supply assessment.. This assessment is being prepared within the allotted time period following a request by the project. Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Review Law e 10910. (I) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610). (2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (t), and (g). (3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan. or the public water system has no urban water _ management plan. the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projectinn will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses. including agricultural and manufacturing uses. e H:\Pdata\65100147\ADMIN\Water Assessment\City of Tern. 2 doc.DOC Page 5 of 10 9/2012005 e e . Rancho California Water District- 58 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER (4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. The development area of the proposed Temecula Medical Center was identified in the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the 1997 Water Facilities Master Plan and the recently adopted 2005 Master Plan (WFMP) Update. Table 4.3 of the 2005 WFMP shows an estimated demand of 129,545 (AF) per year for 2025. The projected water demand for the T emecula Medical Center is approximately 42 acre. feet per year. This includes an allowance of 28 AF for the Hospital, 12 AF for the Medical Office Buildings, 1.2 AF for the Fitness Center, and 0.8 AF for the proposed Cancer Center (source: HKS, InciCcrd partners - Project Architects and Engineers). This demand has been anticipated and included in the adopted UWMP and WFMP for the Rancho California Water District. A review of the Rancho California Water District WFMP and 2000 UWMP revealed the following: . RCWD has an existing and planned combined well, imported, and recycled water production capacity of approximately 150,000 AF. . The ultimate annual water demand of the Rancho California Water District is estimated to be 129,545 AF, while the existing demand for 2004 was approximately 85,000 AF. . Based on the projected water demands for the T emecula Medical Center, and future demands projected for the project service area, this project demand is less than the WFMP projected demands based on land use for the project location. The WFMP projected demands are based on 30 acres of Business Park / Industrial (1500 GPD) and 6 acres of Estate Residential (0.75 AF/ACRE) resulting in a total of 55 AF for the project area. Therefore, the demands have been provided for and can be met with existing supply capacities. In order to accommodate future developments such as the T emecula Medical Center the Rancho California Water District intends to meet supply planning issues thru a combination of alternatives: 1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned RCWD owned wells. 2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via MWDSC and from Vail Lake. 3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed to be available. 4. Conservation Measures. The annual water demand/production for RCWD from 1996 to 2004 is shown on Fiqure 5-1 (copy enclosed) of the Water Facilities Master Plan. An aquifer evaluation is discussed in the "Groundwater" section of this report. The UWMP and WFMP projects domestic (potable) water and recycled water (highly treated wastewater) demands through the year 2025 as a result of estimated demands associated with ultimate land use on Figure 5-5. H:\Pdata\65100147\ADMIN\Water Assessment\Cityof Tern. 2 doc. DOC Page 6 of 10 9120/2005 Rancho Calilomia Water District - SB 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER UWMP and WFMD - Summary e Due to Rancho California Water District's access to/and availability of local groundwater sources and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the basin, short-term drought sttuations have historically had negligible effect on the ability to supply customers. Addttionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a resutt of single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet demands by augmenting tts supply with increased groundwater extractions along with implementation of conservation and other measures. This is based on the findings of the RCW D's Geohydrologist, Dr. Dennis Williams of Geoscience and RCWD's conservation programs and policies in place. It is also anticipated that the use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or critically dry, years. Water Supply Entitlements, Water Rights or Service Contracts Law 10910. (d) (1) The assessment required by this sectinn shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights. or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or counly if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights. or water service contracts. (2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following: e (A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system. (C) Federal. state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply. (D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to conveyor deliver the water supply. Since its inception, the District has sought to develop its groundwater supply sources to the greatest extent feasible. The District overlies two major aquifers, the Temecula and Pauba. These aquifers have been the subject of a number of studies over the years. The District regularly updates their Water Facilities Master Plan Update, and is currently preparing a comprehensive integrated water resources plan. In addition, each year the District has prepared a Groundwater Audit and a Recommended Groundwater Production Report (RGPR). The amount of groundwater which can be produced varies due to such factors as rainfall, recharge area and amount and location of well pumping capacity. The District's rights to use much of its groundwater and the water captured in Vail Lake are defined in a 1940 Stipulated Judgment in the case 01 Santa Margarita versus Vail and Appropriations Permit 7032 issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. The provisions of those documents have been the subject of dispute between the District and Camp Pendleton. e H:\Pda1a\651 00147\ADMIN\Water Assessment\City of Tern. 2 doc. DOC Page 7 of 10 912012005 e e . Rancho Califomla Water District- 58 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER The District currently operates approximately 54 active groundwater production wells. The total sum design flow delivery from these wells is approximately 210 cfs - 170 cfs from wells producing native groundwater and 40 cfs from groundwater recharge and recovery wells. For master planning purposes, an allowance of 100 cfs capacity for native water is assumed. RCWD has direct groundwater rights via provisions of landowner executed "Agency Agreements" (copy enclosed). In addition to groundwater rights, the Rancho Camornia Water District generates wastewater and as such operates local wastewater reclamation facilities that, in turn produces recycled water that is available to augment supplies. At a minimum, Temecula will have access to available recycled water in proportion to its prorata contribution. Groundwater - Basin Description, PWS Pumping, and Sufficiency Analysis Law ] 0910. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment: (1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. (2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated. information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue. in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be H:\Pdata\65100147\ADMIMWater Assessment\City of Tem. 2 doc.DOC Page 8 of 10 912012005 Rancho California Water Dis!rtc! - 5B 610 WATER 5UPPL Y ASSESSMENT TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER e supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to. historic use records. (5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631. Gro~dwarer~smD~cripoon The Rancho California Water District UWMP and WFMP recognizes that the portion of supply to meet project demands will be derived from continued reliance on groundwater pumping (both natural and artificial recharged). Subsequent studies by Dr. Dennis Williams of Geoscience have been prepared which further specifies the hydrogeologic settings of each of the multiple groundwater acquifers that underly the Temecula area. Hydrogeologic Setting As previously mentioned, RCWD overlays the Temecula and Pauba groundwater basins with the ability to extract from both shallow and deep acquifers. Sufficiency of Groundwater Capacity The combined capacity of the RCWD's groundwater wells safe yield is 29,500 AF/yr. RCWD has additional production capacity via the existing 54 wells to maximize artificial recharge and recovery in excess of 17,000 AC/FT. e Conclusion (1) (2) (3) Rancho California Water District has been identified as the public water supplier for the Temecula Medical Center. Water demands for the Temecula Medical Center were included in the RCWD's UWMP and WFMP. Growth in waler demands including those projected for Temecula Medical Center have been provided for as part of the water supply planning by RCWD as described in the 2005 WFMP and previous UWMP. RCWD currently delivers water from the following sources: A. Groundwater - as provided by water rights established via court order and Agency Agreements with overlying landowners. B. Imported Treated Supplies C. Imported Raw Water for Groundwater recharge. D. Recycled Water E. Vail Lake Appropriations Long-term groundwater levels have varied but now remain steady and should remain so by 1. Balancing the annual groundwater extractions, consistent with the Hydrogeologist recommendations, and 2. Recharge, Water Banking, and other management methods through use of more surface water, recycled water, and conservation programs. e (4) (5) H:\Pdata\65100147\ADMlr-f\Water Assessment\City otTem. 2 doc. DOC Page 9 of 10 9/20/2005 e . . Rancho Califomia Water District- SB 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER (6) Through the supplies discussed above, in conjunction with storage and conservation measures and future recycled water use, RCWD has sufficient current capacity and will meet its 2025 projected demands, including the proposed T emecula Medical Center. This project will be conditioned to use recycled water for on-site landscape irrigation which will further reduce it's projected potable water demands. (7) Therefore, RCWD concludes that sufficient water supply exists to support the Temecula Medical Center development as required by S.B. 610. H:\Pdata\651 00147\ADMIMWater Assessment\City of Tern. 2 doc.DOC Page 10 of 10 9/2012005 . ~ . "' e i w 0:: Q) ~ ;:) Cl 0. N ii: ~ ~ I- ~ ~ .... .c 0 , C (') 0 0 .- .. 0 ~ (') 0 "C , N 0 0 ~ 0. ~ N Q) 0 , .. ~ ..... CU 0 Q) ~ - 10 3: 0 ~ ... -0 'i: 0 III Q) , 0 0 II> t:: 0 - >- 0 II) 0. .- III E ~ u . 0 III 0 , u::: ..... e 0> 2 0> 10 3: 0> -0 0> Q) a, 13 0> >- (.) Q) c:: <Xl . - 0> ..... U , .~ .... Q) 0> - - ~ Ul C -0 c: ... .... ::J Gl 0> 0 - .J:, ..... ~ 0> C> ~ . >\ a .!l! ~I c CD ... ui ~ 0> , ~ In :c 0> rn c;; ~ () E u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ .r:. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. '" 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s::: 0> <Xl .... to In .... (') N ~ "' III (:IV) UO!l:>npOJd '" a: ;;; 0; u e ,. .2 .. ~ '"' '"' e ., ., .. ~ ;:; g ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... .., ..,.., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., .. N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... "' "' "' "' '" .. .. ~ .. ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" "< '" ~ 0"; .; .; .. Q N ~ Q ,.; "' .. .. N ~ '" .... '" "' .. N ~ ~~ ~ ~ \ =~ ,. :: \ \...5 \ .\ <- \. ,g:;. \ ;~;; \ ., \ \ l!! \.\g \ \ ,\ \\ \ . C .!! !2 c ., e ~ ~ .., .. N :Ii; !!:!. ... .., '" "' ~ .; ~ .. .. .. .. '" ~ . I I .. .. .. .; N ~ .. .2 e ... .. :5 ;: ... < C> C> C> Q - ~. :i ;;- , ..'" , 8:E "'!!:!. \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ... < C> ~ ,.: - .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. .. .. .; .... . (~V) puewoo OM~1l OOeJOAV PO)30!OJd '" N .. N .. '" .. '" '" ~ .. .. .. .. '" N '" ~ :!! ri: ri: :E ;; !. !. !!:!. !. ... ... ... ... .., .., .., .., .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. "!. "!. "!. "' .. ~ ~ ~ ,.; ~ ~ ~ ~ '" .. N a: ~ >- "' .. l<l .. .. .. '" "' '" '" ~ I .. .. .. Q '" I .. .. .. .; N f- en LU 'I' 0 CI) .... ir < II) u CI l'! !ii ... a.. ::s => " 150 '" :z Ii: ffiCl.) :3 ,." ... a.. ~.!! a: <(Rl LU .... 23: CI> a: c:c OCl) :!S "-- CI> :JRl LU <3E i= 0;:: ::; J: - G o:::::l ~ z <( 'C a: a:CI) LU - .... e < CI) ;;: E = ::s < <= c .2 .Q t; t; :J :J U "0 e e a. a. :;; :;; ~ ~ ~ u ., .~ t; " w 'e I a. I I I I " l'! 0 5 :J 0 0 rJJ rJJ Q; " ~ ~ u .2 .. W (; Q) ,., E 0 Q) 0 a: 0 10 ~~ ~ . , . 'Z D D When recorded return to: RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 42135 Winchester Roa~ Post O~ice Box 9017 Tomecula, CA 92589.9017 e tNS~ rfU~\~ @ AGENCY AGREEMENT NO. THIS AGREEMENT. made this day 01 .20 , by and between (hereinaller relerred to as "Landowner"). and RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, a public corporation organized and existing under Division 13 01 the Water Code 01 the State of Calilornia (hereinaller relerred to as the 'District"), for the property described as follows: (legal description attached). WITNESSETH: e WHEREAS. Ihe District has power and authority to act as agent for the legally applied. It is the intention o(landowner by this Agreement to e><traction. diversion, slorage and distribution of water owned by other maintain a binding and permanent arrangement whereby said local perties; and water soall be properly maintained and be perpetually delivered snd WHEREAS. Landowner is the owner of certain land within the District distributed to all of said lands entitled tnereto and the subdivisions ~e$cribed in ExhiM 'A" attached he"'lO and made a part hereof; and thereof lor the use of landowner. its assigns and Its suce....ors in interest and other owners of such lands. WHEREAS, said land owned by landowner is a portion of land found by the United Stafes District Court, United States 01 America vs. Section 2. landowner hereby grants to the District the right to blend Falibrook Public UUlily District, at sl., in the United States District local water with imponed supplemental water, to distribute imported Court. Southern District of Calnornia, Southern Division. Case No. water to Landowner in lieu of or In addition to the distnbution of local 1247. afllrmed in part by the United States Court of Appe,als for the water and to store imported water under the lands of Landowner. Ninth Circuit, Case No. 18931,10 be land riparian to ce~ain rivers and Section 3. Landowner ~grees that all local water to be used by sfr.amS, including Ihe Santa Margarita River and its tributaries. and Landowner within the District shall be obtained from the District or its also which may be land overlaying percolating waters under a court assigns and successors in interest. Landowner shall not divert or decr.e entered December 26, 1940 in the case Rancho Santa extract within or outside the boundaries of the District local water for Margarita vs. Vail,11 CaL2d 501 (1939), and reinstated by the United landowners own use within the District noc shall landowner supply Stales Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in said Case No, 18931; local water for use within the District by others. landowner further and agrees not to divert or extract within the District local water lor use by WHEREAS. Landowner, without transferring any water right and Landowner or others outside rhe District. Landowner r~sel'Ves to itself privilege perl3inlng \0 said iand, does desire \0 empower the District to its assigns and its successors in interest all water rights and privileges act as its agent and the agent of lis successors an~ assigns 10 extracl, presently owned and woich may be hereinafter aCQuired partaining to store and dive~ the water to which it is entilled (hereinafter relerred to said land and nolhing in Ihis Agr.ement shall be construed as as "local water") and to supply the ssme 10 its land and all other iand appropriating or dedicating saki water rights or any water to publiC use. having, undar the laws of the Slale of California or pursuant to any judgement or contract. a legal right to have said water applied thereon. NOW, THEREFOR!::. in consideration of the mutual promises and agreemenls herein contained, toe parties herelo agree as follows: Section 1. Landowner hereby designates the District its exdusiva agent and the exclusive agent of its assigns and successors in interest for the extraction, diversion. storage, blending and distribution of all local water upon or under the lands of l.andowner referred to tn the recitals hereof far the purpo5e of putting said local water to beneficial use to the fullest extent oi whidl it is capable for th~ lands and inhabitants of Landowner and ~Il o!her l~nds withi~ the watershed of the Santa Margarna River. and Its trfbutanes 011 wtllch said local water now and hereafter may be Section 4. This agency shall be effective and irrevocable in perpetuhy and the same shall be deemed an agency coupled with an interest. provided, however, this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force or effect upon. determination by any court of competent jurisdiction in an appropriate action that the method of extraction and distribution of said local water herein provided is not a proper method of exercising the riparian and other water rights of Landowner. _ Section 5. The District agrees to diven, extract, store and distribu~ local water for the benefit of Landowner. The Oistrict agrees to acquire by lease, purchase, gin or otherwise all wells and water distribution facilities useful and necessary to extract, store and distribute said looal . e . water to the lands and inhabitants entitled Ihereto in accordancs with lhis Ag..oment Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the District from exercising any of its powers granted by the California Water District Law nor shall the District be prohibited Irom acquiring supplemental water lor distrbution to all lands within the District, Section 6. This Agreemenl shall not be assignable by the Dislrict withoullhe written consent of Landowner; provided, however, the Distnct may contract with any municipal, public or privata corporation tor the management and operation of any water facilities owned by or leased by the District Seclion 7. The District shall have tull control of tI1e allocation 01 aU costs 01 acquisition and construction ot Dislrid faeUities using any method or a combination of methods. as sat forth in the California Water Districl Law. or raising funds to defray said costs. The District may adopl such rules and regulations for the dislribution of local water as it deems necessary. The District may anocate the distribution of tha available local water 1n any manner aLJtholizad in the California Water District Law or the rules and regulations of the Dislnct adopted pursuant to said law. Rates and charge5 for the distribution of local water may be made and shali be payable by Landowner, Us assigns and the SuCceSSOrS in interEtst as determined by the Board of Directors of lhe District from time to time; provided, however, said rates atld charges shall no! be so sat to discriminate between water users in substantially the same classific~tiDn. SECTION a. Neither tile District nor the Landowner warrants tile quantity or qualtly of (he local water to be extracted and distributed by the District. on October 22, 1992, which is incorporated herein by reterenco_ Landowner's land benefits trom the righls set forth in Sections 1 and 5 above 10 ccnnacl 10 the Districts water system. The covenants of the Agency Agreement also benefit all other landowners within the boundaries of the District wllO have similarly covenanted with the Disrrict, by securing a reliable region-wide water source, and its attendant increased property values. The boundaries of the Distnct are described In Exhibit .C' of that certain Agency Agroement recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside as Document No. 398782 by the District on October 22, 1992, which is incorporeted herein by reference. Landowner is the owner of land whIch is affected by the covenants of this Agency Agreement and is described in Exhibit 'A'. (b) The covenants of this Agency Agreement shali be binding upon the successive owners of the land described in Exhibit "N or any interest therein or a portIon thereof for the benefit of the District land and fseilitles and other landowners who have similarty covenanted with the Distnct (c) The parties agree that the acts required by this Agency Agreement relate to the use, repair. rnaintsnance and Improvement of the land descrtbed in Exhibit "A". (d) The panies agree that the Agency Agreement shail be recorded at the County Recorder's Office of Riverside County. It is furthe, agreed that tilis Agency Agresment shall not be effective until It is recorded at the office of the Riverside County Recorder, and consent for recordation is hereby given. SECTION 10. In the event Landowner shall convey, transfer or in any manner alienate title to ail or any portion ot the real property of Landowner iocated within the District, the successors in interest in the fee simpfe estate or any lessor estate of Said reat property shall execute an Agency Agreement in the idenllcal form hereof as a condillon precedent to said transfer; provided, however, non-complianc8 with said condition shall in no wise be construed to annul or terminale the agency created hereby and ail rights and dulies hereunder shan be binding on the assigns and successors in interest of the real properly of Landowner located wi1hin th~ District SECTION g. The Dis~ict and Landowner Intend thallhe provisions of the Agency Agreement shail constitute covenanls Ihat fIln with the land and shall inure 10 the benefit of and be binding upon the assigns and successors in interest of the District and Landowner. The District and Landowner therefore agree as follows: (a) The Oistlicl is the owner of SECTION 1 t. 11 anyone or more of the terms, provisions. covenants or land and water distribution racilities within Its boundaries which will be conditions of this Agency Agreement shall to any extent be declared benelitted by the Agency Agteement. The District land benefits from the invalid. unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason what$oevf;lf by a Agency Agreement because wells located on the Dlstrtct land have a court of competent jurisdiction, the finding or order or decree of which mo:e . assured reliable water supply. The Dislrict land particularly becomes final. nonS of tl'ae remaining terms. provisions, covenants and bene~ltted by the terms of this Agency Agreement is descrtbed in Exhibit conditions ot this Agency Agreement shalt be aftected thereby and each "B" a! that cerrain Agency Agreement recorded in the Office of the provision 01 lhis Agency Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to County Recorder of Riverside as Document No. 398782 by the Dis!rict the fullest exfent permitted by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, lhe parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above wntlen. (CORPORATE SEAL) ATTEST: Secretary: ilanoowner") RANCHO CALIFORNiA WATER DISTRICT By: General ManBger District ,_e- ~~;- :;t;:-,.--._.- ~....c,.. ':i?:':_~- ~?-- . ATTACHMENT NO.9 COMMENTiLETTI:RS RECEIVED . ~ __ l , Role U ro004\04,0463 Temecul. Region.Ul9'J!l[.L\1'CJ L -l6"0~\PC'S.TAFF~EiXlR'i\J -16-05 v2.doc . . '44 - . e . . Trumark Companies November 3, 2005 , . Ms. Debbie Vbnoskc Planning Director City ofTemecula Planning Department 43200 Bl1s;ness Park Drivc Temecula, Calitornia 92589 RE: Comments 00 O(aft Environmental Impact RE;port tOI' Temccula Regional llospital (SCHIt ZlJlJSm 1 (17) Dear Ms. Ubnoske; Trumark Companies is processing the cntitlenlent of an approximatdy 7.3-at:re prnject site directly to Ih,' ea.$t of the prop()s,~d T,'1'l1ecula Regi')I\~1 Hnspital (100;;1';1;11) for the purposes of developing a senior residential devdopol(;nt. The application ti.)I' the proposed senior residential development was tiled with tbe Cily ol"rc,necula (City) on Augu~t 9, 2005 and the <.:ntitlement for rlevelopment is anticipatt::d to he completed by January 2006. 'I'he requested entitlement allows 10" the development of approximately 112 attached two-story residential units, a common recreational facility and open space, and pedestrian and vehicular access. Trumark Companies submits the following comments related to land u~e compatibility with respect to three of the project charactt:ristics of the hospital that are located directly to the west ofthe proposed senior (esidential developm('l1t. These three project characteristics, which are described on pages 1-3 and 3-1 of the Draft EIR, are: the 60- toot by 60-foot hclipad proposed near the northeast comer of the hospital; the truck loading area located at tbe eastt:m cdge of the hospital, to the south of the helipad; and facilities plant located at the eastern edge of the hospital, to the south of the helipad. The comments are as follows: Aesthetics: The analysis of visual character or quality provided on pages 4-5 through 4- 14 in SeetioD 4.1, Aesthetics, ofthe Dran EIR failed to analyze potential view/aesthetic impactg and light and glare impacts on the proposed senior residential development site located immediately to the east of the proposed hospital site. Please revise tIlt: diseussion in the Draft EIR to include an analysis ofthe potential view/aesthetic impacts and light and glare impacts on the senior residential development due to the development of the proposed hospital. This needs to speeitically address the potential impacts to the 2f.-I--I7 H.t\NI..:HO PARKWAY SOlFI'H LAKE F0'~EST. CA Q2(..111 proposed senior residential development from the construction and operation of the helipad, the truck loading area, and the plant. Air Quality: The analysis of long-terro impacts to air quality provided on pages 4-24 through 4-26 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR tailed to adequately analyze the long-tenn impacl\l of the proposed hospital on regional and local air quality. Please revise the discussion in the Draft EIR to include an analysis of the impacts of the ongoing operdtion of the proposed hospital. This needs to specifically address tbe potential impacl\l to regional and local air quality due to operation of the helipad, the truck loading area, and thc plant (including the maintenance and testing of emergency power generators). Land Use and Planning: The analysis ofland use compatibility with surrounding land uses provided on page 4-41 in Section 4.4, Land Use and Planning, of the Dnllt EIR failed to analyze the potential land use compatibility impact.~ on the proposed senior residential development site located immediately to the ea~t of the proposed hospital site. Please revise the discussion in the Draft EIR to include an analysis of the [1otentialland ust;.compatibility impacts on the senior residential developmcnt due to the dcvelopment of the hospitaL This needs to specifically address the potential impa<;ts to thc proposed senior residential development ii-om the operation of the helipad, the truck loading arca, and the plant and the associated aesthetic, air quality, and noise impacts [Tom the operation of these project characteristics. Noise: The analysis of operations-related noise provided on pages 4-58 through 4-63 in Section 4.5, Noise, of the Draft EIR failed to analyze potential noise impacts on the proposed senior residential development site located immediately to the east oithe proposed Temecula Hospital site. Please revise the discussion in the Draft EIR to include an analysis of the potential noise impacts on the senior resid~"tttial development due to the development of the hospital. This needs to spt;,;ifically address the potential impacts to the proposed senior residential development from the operation of the helipad, the truck loading area, and the plant (including the maintenance and testing of ernergen-cy power generators). e Trumark Companies requests that, prior to taking actioo on the proposed Temecula Hospital project, please provide the written responses and the revised analyses indicated above. These written responses and revised analyses should be transmitted to Trumark Companies attention Victoria Mata at the address indicated 011 the letterhead. While Trumark Companies strongly supports the development of the Temecula Regional Hospital on the site whcre it is proposed to be located, we need the analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed hospital to be reflected in the environmental docwncntation in order to protect the pending entitlement tor the proposed senior residential development and the future health and safety of il\l residents. We have every confidence that the City will require that the issues indicated be adequately addressed in the Respollse to Comments/Final ErR and any changes to the design oithe project e e e . characteristics will be reflected in the final entitlement approved for the proposed hospital. :t~1Y\~ Victoria Mata Cc: Emery Papps, City ofTemecula Senior Planner ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT e 42430 WINCHESTER RD. TEMECUlA CA 92590 PH: (951) 296-5640 FAX: (951) 296-5524 ~~@~~~~~\ \~ NO'J 03 2005 ~ Equity MANAGEMENT October 31,2005 By_ --:::: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula CA 92589-9033 Subject: Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association Re: Proposed Zone Change Dear Ms. Ubnoske: . The Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association Board of Directors,. on behalf of the entire membership, strongly believes designation of the proposed zone change to allow an A6 (six) story structure is misleading to all except those in the construction trade. We feel an urgent need to see something placed onsite at the proposed height, showing everyone, induding the Planning Commission, the impact such a structure would impose. We understand this concept was brought up in a planning meeting and rejected by the applicant. Please respond in writing. as:to:why :the applicant declined this request. It would be as simple as flying balloons at the indicated height. The Board of Directors sees no reason this matter cannot be resolved in a timely manner before the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting. If the applicant declines to provide the Commission and neighbors a structure (i.e. balloons) indicating the height of their proposed building, we feel the application for consideration by the Commission should be pulled from the November 16, 2005 agenda. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (951) 296-5640. Sincerely, JBO/jlb CC: NM Corrs/City Planning CommiSSioners - . - . ....".., ""=-: .'-, .,-.. . ; ~ CQRRS/OD'l\:lBNOSKl;,'m1~Cl!LA-PROPZON~.qw;GESRH '-'j'.<< - "'~;' -' .ft;",:.; ruc,~:.: 'c';' ,t. ,:!.'~:'~ ;.:'~!~., ~..:(~b~ /.<:? ;-':-i:.; " :" ';' ":-<-"".; '.,'. e . . ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO DANIEL l. CARDOZO RICHARD T. DRURY THOMAS A. ENSLOW TANYA A. GULESSERIAN MARC D. JOSEPH OSHA R. MESERVE SUMA PEESAPATI GLORIA O. SMITH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SACRAMENTO OFFICE 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, sUITe 1000 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037 1225 6th STREET, SUITE 550 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4810 TEL: (916) 444.6201 FAX: (916) 444-6209 FELLOW KEVIN S. GOLDEN TEL: (6S0) 589-1660 , FAX: (650) 589-5062 gsmi Ih@adamsbroadwell.com OF COUNSEL THOMAS R. ADAMS ANN BROADWELL October 28, 2005 TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL Mr. Emery Papp Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula CA 92589 Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Hospital Dear Mr. Papp: On behalf of the California Nurses Association ("CNA"), this letter provides preliminarv comments on the City of Temecula's focused environmental impact report ("focused EIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital project ("Project). As explained below, the City of Temecula's ("City") focused EIR does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").1 Accordingly, the City may not approve the Project or grant any permits for it until the City prepares and circulates a full EIR that addresses all of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. The City's proposed Project is located within city limits on undeveloped land near south Highway 79 and Margarita Road. Temecula Creek runs approximately 1000 feet south of the project site. (Focused EIR, at p. 1-1.) The project site consists of 35.31 acres of vacant land on gently sloping terrain, with a high point between two watersheds on the western side of the parcel. (Id., at p. 1.2.). The eastern boundary of the project contains dense riparian vegetation, presumably along Temecula Creek. 1 Public Resources Code ~~ 21000 et seq. 1818-003a (iprinted on recycled paper el October 28, 2005 Page 2 The proposed Project consists of a 566, 160-square-foot medical facility that will include a two-tower hospital complex with approximately 320 beds. One tower will be six stories and the other five stories. The hospital will provide in-patient, out-patient and emergency services. The facility will also include a 10,000-square- foot cancer center in an adjacent one-story building, and an 8,000 square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. The Project also includes a 60-foot by 60-foot helipad and 1,278 parking spaces. (ld., at p. 1-3.) According to the focused EIR, the Project will have unavoidable and significant short term, long term and cumulative impacts to air quality. The Project will also have unavoidable and significant impacts concerning traffic and noise. The California Nurses Association is one of California's oldest nonprofit social welfare institutions. Founded in 1901, today CNA represents over 65,000 members in more than 165 facilities throughout the state. CNA has represented its members on nursing and public health issues before municipal, county, and state bodies for over 100 years. Over 100 members ofthe CNA provide professional care for e patients in medical facilities in the vicinity of Riverside County and Temecula. CNA's comments are made in its representative capacity of over 100 CNA members and their families who currently reside in Riverside County, on behalf of its members and their families throughout California, and on behalf of health care consumers generally who are directly affected in their health and general welfare by the availability of, access to, and quality and safety of health care services. CNA members and their families have a direct and substantial interest in assuring that scarce health care resources are devoted to the provision of safe and quality care to all persons, and that new health care facilities are developed, constructed and operated in manner that will serve the public health priority of universal access and a single standard of safe and quality care. In addition, like the public at large, CNA members are concerned about sustainable land use and development in this county. Similarly, CNA members live in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally detrimental and poorly planned projects. lll-conceived development, in turn, may jeopardize human health and safety. This is particularly true here given that underground hazardous waste occurs in close proximity to the proposed Project, and the fact that the City seeks to situate a hospital adjacent to an active earthquake fault zone. Likewise, environmentally detrimental projects may jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and 1818-003. e e e . October 28, 2005 Page 3 by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live here. CNA members breathe the same polluted air that others breathe and suffer the same health and safety impacts. The CNA therefore has a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws such as CEQA to 'protect its members. We have prepared these comments with the assistance of three technical experts: Mr. Tom Brohard, Mr. Matt Hagemann, and Dr. Petra Pless. The comments of each of these experts along with their curriculum vitae are provided herein as Attachments I, 2 and 3. Please note that these experts' comments supplement the issues addressed below, thus each expert's comments should be addressed and responded to separately. I. INTRODUCTION CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which the focused EIR satisfies: First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") S 15002(a)(1).) The EIR is the "heart" of this requirement. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 84.) The EIR has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 CalApp.3d 795.) Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines S 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400.) The City failed to satisfy these purposes by not issuing a full EIR but instead circulated a focused EIR adfu-essing only a small portion of the actual impacts associated with the Project. In fact, a focused EIR, by design, is a final-stage tiering document, but the City has not conducting any tiering for this Project. In addition, the City has not complied with CEQA by: failing to provide sufficient information to conduct project-level environmental review of the Project; failing to accurately describe the environmental setting and establish an accurate baseline necessary for an accurate evaluation of environmental impacts; failing to disclose all potentially significant environmental impacts; failing to describe inconsistencies with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance policies and regulations; failing to 1818-003a e October 28, 2005 Page 4 provide adequate mitigation measures to avoid impacts; and failing to analyze cumulative impacts. Based on the foregoing, the focused EIR fails to inform the public or decision makers about the Project's significant im.pacts, and fails to avoid or reduce . environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. The City must correct these shortcomings and recirculate a full EIR for public review and comment. II. THE CITY VIOLATED CEQA'S STATUTORY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD As a preliminary matter, the CNA hereby reserve its right to file supplemental comments at a later date because the City illegally curtailed its Project's public review period from the statutorily required 45 days to 30 days. Specifically, CEQA expressly provides the public with a 45-day review and comment .- . period for all draft environmental impact reports submitted to the State . Clearinghouse (No. 2005031017). (CEQA, section 21091.) Here the City impermissibly curtailed the review time by a full two weeks, which precluded the CNA from providing full and complete comments on the Project. It appears that, coincident to the City submitting its focused EIR to the State Clearinghouse, the City also requested a shortened public review period.2 (Focused EIR, at p. 2-3.) The State Clearinghouse website indicates that it granted the City's improper request for shortened time, but does not state the date or justification of the State's decision. (www.ceaanet.ca.e:ov) Appendix K of the CEQA Guideline describes exceptional and very limited circumstances under which.a lead agency may curtail the public's review period, and it is clear that the City's focused EIR meets none of the below criteria: Under exceptional circumstances, and when requested in writing by the lead agency, the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) may. shorten the usual review periods for proposed negative. declarations, mitigated negative declarations and draft EIRs submitted to the Clearinghouse. A request must be made by the decision-making body of the 2 Note, that the focused EIR simply declares that the City intended to apply for a curtailed review period, omitting any justification or indication of fmal resolution of this issue. (Focused EIR, at p. 2- 1.) 1818-003. e e . . October 28, 2005 Page 5 lead agency, or by a properly authorized representative of the decision-making body. A shortened review period may be granted when any of the following circumstances exist: (1) The lead agency is operating under an extension of the one-year period for completion of an EIR and would not otherwise be able to complete the EIR within the extended period. (2) The public project applicant is under severe time constraints with regard to obtaining financing or exercising options which cannot be met without shortening the review period. (3) The document is a supplement to a draft EIR or proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration previously submitted to the State Clearinghouse. (4) The health and safety of the community would be at risk unless the project is approved expeditiously. (5) The document is a revised draft EIR, or proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, where changes in the document are primarily the result of comments from agencies and the public. Shortened review cannot be provided to a draft EIR or proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration which has already begun the usual review process. Prior to requesting shortened review, the lead agency should have already issued a notice of preparation and received comments from applicable State agencies, in the case of an EIR, or consulted with applicable State agencies, in the case of a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix K) According to State Clearinghouse senior planner, Scott Morgan, the City relied on section (5), above (Telephone communication, Oct. 24, 2005). However, that provision only allows shortened time when the lead agency has circulated a revised DEIR, a proposed negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration, 1818-003. e October 28, 2005 Page 6 none of which applies here. Instead, the City issued a focused EIR, and circulated it for the first time on September 28, 2005. Thus, Appendix K's section 5 is inapplicable, as are all of the other limited exceptions to CEQA's 45-day rule. Therefore, the City submitted a wrongful request which the State granted, likely assuming the City's request had been made on valid grounds. In any case, the City's dubious actions have curtailed the public's and decision makers' review of its CEQA document by a full two weeks. Because the CNA was illegally denied the full statutory period to review and comment upon the City's focused EIR, the CNA hereby reserves the right to supplement these preliminary comments at a later .date. III. THE DEIR FAILS TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally adequate EIR. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 CalApp.3d 185, 192.) Without it, CEQA's objective of fostering public disclosure e and informed environmental decision-making is stymied. As one analyst has noted: The adequacy of an EIR's project description is closely linked to the adequacy of the EIR's analysis of the project's environmental effects. If the description is inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project, the environmental analysis will probably reflect the same mistake. (Kostka and Zischke, "Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act," p. 474 (8/99 update).) The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an EIR. (County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192.) It is impossible for the public to make informed comments on a project of unknown or ever. changing proportions. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs. . . ." (County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-193.) In County of Inyo, the lead agency first defined the project to include only the extraction of groundwater from Owens Valley for export and use on city-owned land in Inyo and Mono Counties. Then, the project was defined as "one part of the larger operation of the Los Angeles Aqueduct System." And in yet another part of the document, the project included the entire Los Angeles Aqueduct System. (Id. at 190.) The Court found the inconsistent project descriptions to be harmful because "the inconsistency confused 181S-003a e e e . October 28, 2005 Page 7 the public and commenting agencies, thus vitiating the usefulness of the process". . . "as a vehicle for intelligent public participation. . . . A curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input." (Id. at 197-198.) A project is "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately".. .including "the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies." (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15378(a), (c); see McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143.) In McQueen, the plaintiff challenged the approval of a project that was improperly described in a CEQA exemption as simply acquiring surplus federal property for public open space. (202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1140, 1144.) The court concluded that this description impermissibly "divided the project into segments which evade CEQA review" because the public entity had plans for the interim use and management of this property that contained polychlorinated biphenyls. (Id. at pp. 1144-1146.) An accurate description of the property also demonstrated the project was not exempt from CEQA review. (Id. at p. 1149.) As discussed below, the focused EIR fails to describe the Project and its environmental setting accurately and completely. It omits key project features that have the potential to result in significant impacts. As a result, potentially significant environmental impacts were not adequately analyzed or addressed by the focused EIR. Therefore, the focused EIR is fatally deficient under CEQA. A. The Focused EIR Failed To Accurately Describe The Project Construction Schedule And Equipment The focused EIR fails to include a detailed construction schedule with the list of equipment that will be used, the horsepower of each piece of equipment, the hours of operation, the type of fuel used, the length and timing of the individual construction phases, and so forth. Further, the focused EIR contains no information regarding the expected timing of completion of each of the major project phases as well as the buildout horizon for the entire Project. This information is typically provided in an EIR, but was not. Without this information, emissions resulting from construction cannot be accurately estimated. As discussed below, the focused EIR uses mostly default assumptions to model construction emissions, which may considerably underestimate emissions. 1818-003a e October 28, 2005 Page 8 1. The Focused EIR Contains No Grading Plan Or Cut-And- Fill Analysis The Initial Study for the Project finds no significant impacts with respect to geology and soils, relying on a perfunctory geotechnical investigation conducted for the Project. The Initial Study fails to include this study for public review. According to the Initial Study, the geotechnical investigation recommends over- excavation up to 24 inches below existing grade and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavement. (Appx. A, NaP/Initial Study, p. 16 through 18.) Yet, neither the focused ElR nor the Initial Study contains a grading plan or any other information regarding the amount of cut and fill necessary for development of the site or the projected amount and location of spoils, if any. Review of the focused ElR's emissions modeling suggests that only some minor amount of material will have to be imlexported.3 This suggests that the focused ElR largely relies on balancing the amount of cut and fill of native soil on site with no additional import offill material or export of excess cut material. Yet neither the Initial Study nor _ the focused ElR contains any information demonstrating that cut and fill can, in . fact, be balanced on site. This information is typically derived from a grading plan, which would ordinarily be provided in an EIR, but was not. If cut and fill cannot be balanced on site, material would have to be imported or exported, which causes additional emissions. \ 2. The Focused DEIR Failed To Adequately Describe Mechanical Equipment The Project requireE: a variety of mechanical equipment, including heating and air conditioning equipment, emergency generators, boilers, and so forth. None of this equipment is described with any detail in the focused EIR. The focused ElR provides only the following vague statement: "A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loadiug dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area." (Focused EIR, p. 3.4.) Review of the Project site plan indicates three cooling towers, two emergency generators, two transformers, and a fuel tank located in the 3 URBEMIS2002 modeling assumes 18 vehicle miles traveled (''VMT') for on. road truck travel during the grading phase, suggesting a minimal imlexport of materials, approximately 2500 cubic yards based on the program's default values. This small amount of material is most likely export of existing pavements, utilities and other deleterious material that has to be removed from the site. 1818-003. . e . . October 28, 2005 Page 9 mechanical yard. (Focused EIR, p. 3-5, Figure 3-2.) The focused EIR's noise impact analysis further indicates that the mechanical equipment room, which is proposed to be located inside the Phase IE hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard, will contain pumps, chillers and boilers. Air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and outlet exhaust systems will be located on the hospital's rooftop. (Focused EIR, p. 4-63.) This limited information, scattered over several chapters of the focused EIR, is entirely inadequate to determine emissions and resulting environmental impacts from operation of the mechanical equipment. A complete and accurate project description must include the fuel, firing rate, and number of boilers; the capacity for the two emergency generators; the type and efficiency of the proposed pollution . control equipment; the circulating water flow and total dissolved solids (''TDS'') content of the cooling water; the drift rate of the cooling towers; and the information . required to model these sources, e.g., stack location, height, diameter, exhaust gas flow rate, temperature, and so forth. Without knowledge of these characteristics, it is impossible to determine emissions from this equipment and, in fact, they were not included in the operational emissions estimates for the Project. Because the City failed to include an adequate project description in its focused EIR, CEQA requires that it complete and recirculate a full EIR that fully complies with long-established caselliw on this issue. IV. THE FOCUSED EIR LACKS SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO ANALYZE THE PROJECT'S IMPACTS Rather than issue a full EIR, the City circulated an incomplete CEQA document it deemed a "focused EIR." Irrespective of its title, the EIR fails to meet CEQA requirements because the document only addresses a fraction of the true environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. There is no dispute that CEQA allows agencies to prepare different types of EIRs. Indeed, the different types of documents serve to promote efficiency and avoid redundancy in the planning process while still providing the public with full disclosure of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. The permitted CEQA documents include: project EIRs; EIRs as part of general plans; master EIRs; program EIRs; staged EIRs; focused EIRs; subsequent EIRs; and supplemental EIRs. Most of these EIRs, including a focused EIR, are associated with a process known as "tiering" by which an agency prepares a series of EIRs or negative declarations, typically moving from general, regional concerns to more site-specific considerations 1818-003a e October 28, 2005 Page 10 with the preparation of each new document. (CEQA sections 21068.5, 21093, 21094; CEQA Guidelines sections 15152, 15385.) However, as shown below, the City has not engaged in any early planning or tiering which would allow it to issue anything but a full Em. A. The City Must Prepare A Full EIR The most common type of Em examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. Such project Ems address all of the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. Project Ems must examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. (CEQA Guidelines section 15161.) Project Ems mayor may not be part of a tiering process because they operate as stand alone documents containing all of the necessary components of a valid CEQA document. On the other hand, a focused Em is only appropriate where an agency has prepared a master Em ("MEm") for a broadly defined planning program. (Remy, Thomas et aI., Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (10th ed. 1999), p. 275.). In such cases, a e focused Em may be appropriate for subsequent individual projects expressly contemplated in the MEIR. (Id.) This allows the lead agency to dispense with analyses already addressed in the MEm. (CEQA, sections 21157 et seq.; CEQA Guidelines, section 15157.) However, importantly, a focused EIR must incorporate by reference the MEIR on which the lead agency is relying. (CEQA, sections 21158.) . Here, the City circulated a final-stage tiering document, despite its not providing any indication of prior tiering associated with the proposed Project. As a result, the City's focused EIR is incomplete and omits important impact analyses that would normally be discussed in a prior fmalized document, and then incorporated by reference into the focused EIR. Specifically the focused Em failed to include analyses for: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soil, hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. As shown below, the City's preparation of a focused EIR for the proposed Project does not comply with CEQA's legal requirements because a factual analysis of the Project shows that the City failed to include significant environmental impacts in its CEQA document. In sum, given the procedural and factual background of the City's Project, it is clear that the City was required to prepare 'a full project Em since the Project is 1818-003a e . . . October 28, 2005 Page 11 not part of a larger CEQA planning process. By this measure alone, it is clear the City acted improperly by preparing a focused EIR which omits essential impact analyses for ten CEQA factors without incorporating by reference from an earlier CEQA document. The City must prepare and circulate for public review a full EIR that includes analyses for all of the required topics. B. The Fair Argument Standard Requires The City To Prepare A Full EIR Here, the "fair argument" standard determines whether the City is required to prepare either a full Em or a focused Em. (Remy Thomas, at p. 506.) This standard obtains because CEQA requires the preparation of an Em whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that a project may have a significant environmental impact. If an agency is presented with such evidence, it . cannot rely on contrary evidence as a basis for choosing not to prepare an Em. (Sierra Club u. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1307, 1316-17.) In this case, the City prepared only a partial Em addressing only a fraction of the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project. Thus the fair argument standard applies to those resource areas the City omitted from its CEQA analysis. More specifically, a full EIR is required (as opposed to a negative declaration or focused EIR) whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that significant impacts may occur. Even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the agency nevertheless must prepare a full EIR. (No Oil, Inc. u. City of Lost Angeles (1974) 13 Ca.3d 68, 75.) The fair argument standard creates a low threshold for requiring preparation of an EIR. (Citizens Action to Serue All Students u. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) This standard is founded upon the principle that, because adopting a negative declaration has a terminal effect on the environmental review process, an Em is necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions," and to "substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation." (No Oil, Inc. 13 Ca1.3d at p. 85.) This analysis is fully applicable here because, by choosing to ignore ten of the sixteen environmental factors in the NOP's Environmental Checklist, the City has precluded all review of these issues, resulting in the same outcome as if the City had simply issued a negative declaration for these issues. It is clear from the City's environmental documents that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment in resource areas the City refused to analyze. For example, the City's 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 12 focused ErR omitted significant analyses covering the existence of hazardous leaking underground storage tanks within 250 feet of the Project. Therefore, applying the fair argument standard, there is substantial evidence that the City should have prepared a full Em addressing all of the environmental factors enumerated in the NOP's Environmental Checklist. V. THE FOCUSED EIR FAILS TO DISCLOSE OR ANALYZE ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Even if using a focused EIR were appropriate in this instance, which it is not, the document itself is defective and must be revised and recirculated. Under CEQA, an EIR must disclose all of a project's potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. (CEQA section 21100(b)(1).) The City's focused Em patently fails to do so. First, the focused Em contains only cursory analyses of impacts associated with aesthetic resources, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise and transportation. Second, the focused Em failed to include any analyses whatsoever for: agricultural resources, biological . resources, cultural resources, geology and soil, hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. For nearly all of these issues, the record is incomplete because the City failed to identify significant impacts associated with these resource areas. The most glaring deficiencies are as follows: A. The Focused EIR Fails To Identify Hazardous Waste Sites Since 2001, Riverside County and the City of Temecula have known that the Project site and local groundwater is contaminated by hazardous waste due to leaking underground fuel tanks ("LUFTs"). Yet, the City's focused Em fails to reveal this information, claiming instead that there would be no impacts or less than significant impacts associated with the proposed Project for geology, soils and hazardous waste issues. (Focused Em, at p. 1-8) But, in reality, the proposed Project is within 250 feet of two gas stations where leaking underground fuel tanks have been the subject of ongoing assessment and cleanup activities. First, there is a Chevron station located at 31669 Hwy. 79 which has been listed as an 'open file' according to the California EP A "Geotracker" . 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 13 web site.4 This web site specifies that the site's groundwater is contaminated with gasoline-related hazardous materials, including methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), tert-buytl alcohol (TBA) and toluene. There is no evidence that remediation at this site is close to complete. Nor is there any indication of the size and movement of the existing contaminant plume. Second, there is an ARCO gas station at 44239 Margarita Road that is listed at the Geotracker web site as undergoing assessment and cleanup activities. Here, as at the Chevron station, there is no evidence that remediation is close to complete.5 Also, as with the Chevron station, contaminants in groundwater include gasoline-related compounds. Currently, there is no indication ofthe size and movement of the existing contaminant plume. Significantly, the City is well aware that these facilities pose serious health risks to workers and patients at the proposed medical facility because the gas stations are included in the City's General Plan as "open fuel leak cases" and . specifies: "any new development that involves contaminated property will necessitate the clean up and/or remediation of the property in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local requirements and regulations. No construction will be permitted to occur at such locations until a no further action or similar determination is issued by the City's Fire Department, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other responsible agency."6 Despite this clear directive, the City is proposing to locate the Project, a hospital containing a cancer center, in-patient, out-patient, emergency services and a rehabilitation center, adjacent to two hazardous waste sites that are listed as . open and are actively undergoing assessment and cleanup for hazardous materials. Inexplicably, the focused Em completely omits any discussion of these hazardous waste sites and the status of their cleanl11p. . <ihttn:ll"eotracker.swrcb.ca."ov/renortslluft.asn ?"lobal id=T0606599286&assil!Ded name=MAINSIT E). 5ihttn:/I"eotracker .swrcb.ca."ov/reoortslIuft.aso ?"lobal id=T0606599255&assil!Ded name=MAINSIT E). 6htto:/Iwww .citvoftemecula.or"'citvhalllCommDev DivisionlPlannin"/rnuodate/Final%20EIRJ5 7%20 Hazards%20and%20Hazardous%20Materials.ndf 1818-003a . October 28, 2005 . Page 14 Similarly, the focused EIR does not address the issue of hazardous waste exposure to hospital patients and employees through groundwater contamination: Instead, the City asserts that no mitigation measures are required with respect to these issues. (Focused Em, at p. 4-35) This, despite the fact that the City acknowledges it intends to rely on groundwater on an as needed basis, "if surface waters are reduced." (Focused Em, at p. 4-35). Groundwater is less than 25 feet below the ground surface at the Project location, and exposure to the gasoline-related compounds via the water or vapor pathways is possible during construction and within hospital buildings post- construction. Therefore, the City must prepare a full Em to identify potentially significant impacts of contaminant exposure to construction workers, the hospital staff and patients as a result of these contaminants. Any pathways of exposure that would result in risk to human health must be mitigated prior to construction. B. The Focused EIR Fails To Identify the Location of An Active Earthquake Fault Zone Near the Project . The City failed to disclose and discuss in its focused Em the fact that the Project would be located within 2500 feet of an active earthquake fault zone known as the Elsinore Fault. This particular fault has generated a magnitude 7.0 earthquake along its southern segment in the late 1800s. . The fault zone is recognized in the Temecula General Plan and designated an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. This designation, pursuant to California's Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act), limits the types of construction and other activities that can occur within the Elsinore Fault Zone to prevent damage associated with ground surface rupture. (See Pub. Res. Colle section 2621 et. seq.) Significantly, the purpose of the Alquist- Priolo Act is to prohibit the location of developments, such as hospitals, across the traces of active faults. (Pub. Res. Code sections 2621.5,2621.6) The Act prohibits the City from approving the proposed Project without completing "a geologic report defining and delineating any hazard of surface fault rupture." (pub. Res. Code section 2623(a)) Moreover, Project approval must be in accordance with the policies and criteria established by the State Mining and Geology Board and the findings of the State Geologist. (Id.) There is no evidence in the focused Em that the City has conducted such a report in consultation with the State. 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 15 Additionally, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of 1983 (Hospital Seismic Safety Act) provides further requirements to ensure the safety of medical facilities sited in earthquake prone areas. (Health and Safety Code Section 129675 et. seq.) The Legislature passed the Hospital Seismic Safety Act to require that "hospital buildings. . . shall be designed and constructed to resist, insofar as practical, the forces generated by earthquakes." (Health and Safety ~ 129680(a).) To accomplish this goal, the Hospital Seismic Safety Act requires approval of all projects by the Office of Statewide Health and Planning and Development ("Office"). (Health and Safety ~ 129770(a).) Approval by the Office must include an independent review of geological data by an engineering geologist. . and independent review of the structural design data by a structural engineer. (Id.) In addition to independent review by the Office, the Hospital Seismic Safety Act requires that plans for hospital construction include "an assessment of the nature of the site and potential earthquake damage, based upon geologic and engineering investigations and reports by competent personnel of the causes of earthquake damage." (Id.) Prior to construction of any hospital building, discretionary plan approval by the Office is required. (Health and Safety Code ~ 129810.) Clearly, the City has not complied with the Hospital Seismic Safety Act since there is no evidence in the focused Em that the City has obtained an approved assessment from the Office of Statewide Health and Planning and Development. The City must prepare a full ErR that includes a geologic report consistent with the State Board for Geology and Mining, and must obtain approval by the Office of Statewide Health an,d Planning and Development. In addition, a full EIR must include measures to mitigate safety impacts as a result ofthe Project's proximity to .this particular fault zone. Finally, in accordance with the City's General Plan, the full EIR must include a complete geologic investigation by a State-licensed engineering geologist to ensure that the project will not be constructed across any traces of the Elsinore Fault. If an active trace fault is found, a hospital cannot be placed over the trace of the fault, but instead must be set back from the fault in accordance with the California Public Resources Code. C. The EIR Fails to Identify the Location ofth"e Project in a Liquefaction Hazard Zone Finally, and in connection with seismic impacts the City failed to disclose in its focused Em, the Project area is also especially prone to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. According to the Temecula General Plan, and as shown in the following figure, the area underlying the proposed Project has been mapped as a 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 16 "liquefaction hazard zone."7 As mentioned above, a geologic report in consultation with the State Mining and Geology Board and incorporating its policies and criteria, would likely remedy the focused Em's deficiencies with respect to the issue of liquefaction. . 7(httO:/Iwww .citvoftemecula.or,,/citvhalIlCommDevDivisionIPlannin!!/rnuodatelFinaI%20EIRJ5 6%20 . Geolo!!V%20and%20SoiIs.odf. p. 5.6-4). ' 1818-003. . . . October 28, 2005 Page 17 f~!i.G,l . s.ii.r..,,, H...",i. .k...rl 1iiii1 :~HllOloinJzu,~ ......... rq;,,:do:1l.,Fui:1...~ -.- .~tiy:"J'f1f.~ __..... 5t:~cini:~.~'nllYWy :~_IjJ~~:~_~1IY ::_=:~~aQOII)IM~ . u' ,'l\.~ ,l'-';WO-' H 'H i:------i:ru. '1--/ ......... Mbo . " :: ...... Nevertheless, because the City failed to comply with State law, and completely omitted a geologic report and omitted the actual topic of geology and soils from its CEQA analysis, the public and decision makers are denied the 181&.003a . October 28, 2005 Page 18 opportunity to review this critical issue. An adequate EIR containing a geologic report, specifically identifying the Project as within a liquefaction zone, is required to analyze the issue of liquefaction and to identify specific ways in which these conditions can be mitigated. D. The Focused EIR Fails to Identify Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards Particulate matter is emitted from two sources, engine exhaust and fugitive dust. The health impacts of particulate matter depend on its size, and the size depends on its source. Combustion sources, such as vehicle exhaust, predominantly emit particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ofless than or equal to . 2.5 micrometers ("PM2.5"), while fugitive dust consists predominantly of particulate matter less than 10 micrometers ("PMI0"). Historically, health impacts due to particulate matter were regulated . through ambient air quality standards for PMIO. However, a substantial amount of important new research has been published, documenting new health impacts at much lower concentrations and for different size fractions of particulate matter than was previously known and reflected in ambient air quality standards. (U.S. EPA 04196;8 U.S. EPA 03/01.9) This new research documents that the inhalation of particulate matter, particularly the smallest particles, causes a variety of health effects, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory (e.g., cough, shortness of breath, wheezing, bronchitis, asthma attacks) and cardiovascular disease, declines in lung function, changes to lung tissues and structure, altered respiratory defense mechanisms, and cancer, among others. (U.S. EPA 04196; 61 FR 65638.10) A recent article linked long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Report EPA/6001P-95.001aF through 001cF, April 1996. 9 U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Second External Review Draft, March 200l. .0 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Proposed Decision, Federal Register, v. 61, no. 241, December 13, 1996, pp. 65638-65675. 1818-003. . . October 28, 2005 Page 19 pollution to cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.11 Particulate matter is a non-threshold pollutant, which means that there is some possibility of an adverse health impact at any concentration. (See American Trucking u. EPA: Unjustified Revival of the Nondelegation Doctrine, 23-SPG Environs Envtl. L & Pol'y J. 17, 26.) This new information led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") and the State of California to propose new ambient air quality standards for PM2.5. These standards are not subsets of the old PMI0 standards, but new 'standards for a separate pollutant with distinguishable impacts. The new annual PM2.5 standard of 12 J.lg/m3 was adopted by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") on June 20, 2002 and became effective on June 5, 2003, more than two years before the focused Em was published. (Voting on the proposed 24-hour- average PM2.5 standard of 25 J.lg/m3 has been deferred by CARB.12) At the same time, California lowered its annual PMlO standard from 30 J.lg/m2 to 20 J.lg/m3. (CARB 09/0513.) The focused Em also failed to acknowledge this new, lower standard for PMI0. (Focused EIR, at Table 4-1.) Consequently, the focused Em . failed to accurately characterize the regulatory setting for the Project. E. The Focused EIR Fails To Analyze PM2.5 Emissions The focused ErR does not include an analysis of the Project's impacts on ambient air quality resulting from PM2.5 emissions. This is a significant and inexcusable omission because the South Coast Air Basin ("SoCAB'), where the Project is located, frequently does not meet the federal or State ambient air quality standards for PM2.5. The focused ErR should be revised to include an analysis of PM2.5 emissions from Project construction and operation and resulting impacts on air quality and human health. . 11 A.A. Pope et al., Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, Joumal of the American Medical Association, v. 287, no. 9, pp. 1132-1141. 12 California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Draft Proposal to Establish a 24-hour Standard for PM2.5, Public Review Draft, March 12, 2002. .3 Califomia Air Resources Board, Review of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates, httn:/Iwww.arb.ca...ov/researchlaaaslstd-rs/std-rs.htm. accessed October 26, 2005. 1818-003a . October 28, 2005 Page 20 F. The Focused EIR Failed To Include A Health Risk Assessment The focused EIR identifies several sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project, including residential developments surrounding the site; nine primary schools, two middle schools, and three high schools within two miles of the Project site; and two parks within two miles of the Project site. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-21.) Yet the focused Em contains no health risk assessment analyzing the potential health risks for these sensitive receptors resulting from Project construction or operational emissions. Potentially adverse health impacts likely result from toxic air contaminant emissions, including PM2.5, from diesel combustion engines such as emissions from operation of the emergency generators and the diesel trucks that access the loading dock. The focused EIR should be revised to include a health risk assessment. G. The Focused EIR Underestimated Construction Emissions According to the focused Em, significant impacts will continue after its . implementation of proposed mitigation measures for ROG and NOx. As discussed below, the focused Em's air quality analysis considerably underestimates emissions from construction activities and thereby fails to adequately disclose impacts on air quality from Project construction. If these problems are corrected, emissions of CO and PMlO wiiJ. likely also exceed applicable significance thresholds. . H. The Focused EIR Employed An Incorrect Construction Period For Emissions Estimates The focused Em indicates that construction of the Project will occur in five phases as summarized in the Table 1. (Focused EIR, at pp. 3-7 and 3-8.) 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 21 Table 1: Project Construction Phases Phase Activity Period IA - Grading - Demolition of existing buildings - Construction of 3-story, 60,OOO-square foot medical office 10 months building - Construction of surface narkinl!: IE - Construction of I-story, 162,650-square foot main hospital structure 14 months - Construction of 6-story, 122,755-square foot bed tower - Construction of associated oarkin" II - Construction of 5-storv, 122,755-square foot bed tower III - Construction of 4-story, 80,000-square foot medical office building - Construction of hosoital connector 12 months IV - Construction of I-story, 1O,OOO-square foot cancer center (II-V - Construction of associated uarkin" concurrent) V' - Construction of 8,000 square foot fitness center - Construction of 10"";n,, trail Total 36 months Construction of all phases is projected to last a maximum of 36 months if the proposed construction phases (IA, IB, and II-V) are conducted subsequently. In contrast, the focused EIR's construction emissions estimates were based on a 60- month construction period, starting in January 2006 and terminating in December 2010. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-24, footnote to Table 4-5, and Appx. B, p. 2.) By stretching construction emissions over a period of 60 months rather than the actual proposed 36-month construction period, the focused EIR considerably underestimates maximum daily emissions and, thus, considerably underestimates air quality impacts' from Project construction. rn fact, construction of the Project could even be shorter than 36 months because nothing in the focused EIR's language restricts the developer to the staggered construction phasing. rf more than the specified construction phases would be conducted concurrently, even greater emissions would occur. The City relied upon the URBEMIS2002 model in assuming a construction buildout of 36 months and otherwise accepting all of the focused Em's assumptions. Results are included in Exhibit 1 to Dr. Pless' comments. Maximum daily ROG emissions increase considerably from 224 lb/day to 344lb/day. Therefore, the focused EIR failed to disclose the magnitude of impacts associated with Project construction. The focused EIR must be revised to include a construction schedule 1818-003a . October 28, 2005 Page 22 showing the projected start of the various construction phases and their expected buildout. The focused EIR's air quality analysis must be corrected accordingly because, as currently drafted, it employs an incorrect construction period. I. The Focused EIR Assumes Unacceptable Model Default Values The focused EIR's construction emissions estimates largely ~ssume URBEMIS2002 default values, which may substantially underestimate the Project's real emissions. For example, the focused EIR assumes the default factor for auerage fugitive dust emissions from grading of 0.11 ton/acre-month. By accepting the default value for average conditions, the focused Em fails to evaluate the potential worst case, as is customary for CEQA analyses. The default factor for worst-case condition is 0.42 ton/acre-month. Therefore, the focused ErR may have underestimated potential worst-case conditions during grading of the Project by a factor of almost four. Further, use of this default value is only suggested when no other information is available. Typically, for a Project of this size, the amount of cut/fill would also be known. . Another example is the assumption of 8 hours of construction per day. This assumption directly conflicts with the focused EIR's statement. that "construction activity will occur only between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. (Focused EIR, at p.4-53.) Although the focused Em makes this assertion, it should be noted that the document contains no enforceable restrictions on the hours of construction per day and, thus, construction may be conducted for more than the assumed 8 hours per day and more than the 12 hours per day claimed in the noise section of the document. This would considerably increase the potential daily emissions from the Project. The focused Em must either contain an enforceable mitigation measure limiting the permissible hours of construction or it must adjust its emissions estImates accordingly. J. The Focused EIR Failed to Identify Fugitive Dust Emissions From Wind Erosion And Trackout The focused Em indicates that grading of the entire 35.31-acre site will occur during Phase lA, exposing those portions of the site which will be developed in later phases (phase IE through V), to wind erosion for an extended period oftlme. (Focused Em, at p. 3-7.) The City relied upon the URBEMIS2002 emissions modeling to estimate Project construction emissions which includes fugitive dust 1818-003a . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 23 associated with grading, but does not account for wind erosion.14 Wind erosion can be a substantial contributor to fugitive dust from construction sites, particularly in summer-dry climates such as the SoCAB. Further, the URBEMIS2002 emissions modeling does not account for mud/dirt trackout from the site. Consequently, the focused Em does not disclose the full impact of fugitive dust PMI0 emissions from Project construction. Fugitive dust emissions due to wind erosion and trackout can be calculated using guidance developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA''). (AP-42, Sec. 13.2.515; EPA 450/3-88-008.16) The City must prepare a full EIR to include this analysis. K. The Focused EIR Failed To Properly Estimate Operational Emissions The focused EIR's air quality impact analysis underestimates operational emissions from the Project because it omits emission sources, uses inadequate trip generation rates, and fails to include secondary emissions from electricity generation. The focused EIR finds total operational NOx emissions' of 94.5 lb/day, only 5.5 Ib/day below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 100 lb/day. This NOx significance threshold will likely be exceeded when taking into account the omitted emission sources, adequate trip generation rates, and secondary emissions from the Project. Similarly, PMIO emissions, currently estimated at 123 lb/day, may exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 150 lb/day. As a result, the focused Em fails to disclose and adequately mitigate significant impacts due to operational emissions of PMI0 and NOx. The focused EIR should be revised to address these issues and be recirculated for public review. 1< The URBEMIS2002 fugitive dust emissions estimates are based on a methodology developed for the SCAQMD by the Midwest Research Institute ("MRf'). (Software User's Guide: URBEMIS 2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, April 2005, p. A-6.) The MRI study specifically notes that the emission factors for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities do not include . wind erosion or mud/dirt trackout from the site. (MRr; Improvement of Specific Emission Factors, BACM Project No.1, Final Report, March 29,1996, p. 4-1.) 15 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 13.2.5, Industrial Wind Erosion, January 1995, corrected on April 13, 2001. 16 C. Cowherd, G.E. Muleski, and J.S. Kinsey, Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA 450/3.88- 008, U_S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988. 1818-oo3a . October 28, 2005 Page 24 L. The Focused EIR Omitted Important Emission Sources The focused EIR's air quality impact analysis is based on emissions calculated with the URBEMIS2002 model. The model calculates area source emissions from traffic generated by the Project and emissions from natural gas usage, hearths, landscaping, consumer products, and architectural coatings and operational traffic emissions. The model does not include emissions from the helicopter, the three cooling towers, the two emergency generators, and the boilers. The Initial Study concluded that "[a]rea source emissions such as heaters, air condition units and other machines are not considered significant generator [sic] of emissions." (NOPllnitial Study, p. 7.) This conclusion is unsupported in the text of the focused EIR and appears to be speculation. Even if emissions from these soUrces were individually small, they may be cumulatively considerable and must therefore be included in the a full Em concerning a Project emissions analysis. The combined emissions from the helicopter, the diesel generators and the . boilers, even if small, may result in exceedance of the NOx significance threshold. For example, typical NOx emissions for commercial light twin-engine helicopters17 are about 4.0 lb per landing and takeoff (''L TO"), bringing total NOx emissions from the Project within one pou:ld per day of the significance threshold. (OCS 1010418, p.6-17.) M. The Focused EIR's Failed To Identify Emissions From Natural Gas Usage The URBEMIS2002 model assigns gas usage rates to different land uses, e.g., residences, industrial, hotel/motel, and office, to calculate area source emissions from the use of gas-fired boilers, furnaces, hearths, etc. The model does not calculate emissions associated with natural gas usage at hospitals. The Project is intended to operate a number of, .presumably natural-gas fired equipment-types, 17 The noise analysis stated that the exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been confirmed, but that the Bell 222 has been identified as a model that could potentially be used. The Bell 222, a frequently used helicopter model for emergency transports, is a commercial light twin- engine helicopter. 18 R. Billings and D. Wilson, Data Quality Control and Emissions Inventories of OCS Oil and Gas Production Activities in the Breton Area of the Gulf of Mexico, Final Report, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, MMS 2004-071, October 2004. 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 25 including boilers and heating/air conditioning equipment. Emissions from such equipment, which are likely considerable, are not included in the focused EIR's area emissions estimates for Project operations presented in Table 4-6. Because the focused EIR does not include these types of emissions analyses, the document is inadequate. N. The Focused EIR Used Incorrect Target Year Results To Underestimate Vehicle Emissions The focused Em assumes 2010 as the target year for operational traffic emissions. Construction is assumed to start in January 2006 with a 36 month construction period. Ther.efore, the target year for operational emissions should be 2009, not 2010. Because vehicular emissions are assumed to decrease with every year, the calculated operational emissions for 2010 underestimate actual emissions at Project buildout, i.e. in 2009. Relying upon URBEMlS2002 for target year 2009 and otherwise assuming all of the focused EIR's assumptions, results are included as Exhibit 1 to Dr. Pless' comments. Emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO in 2009 are about 10% higher than for target year 2010. This results in NOx emissions exceeding the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance threshold. This is a significant impact that was not disclosed in the focused Em. O. The Focused EIR Underestimated Traffic Emissions The City's URBEMIS2002 air quality analysis uses default trip lengths to estimate emissions from Project-related traffic. These default trip lengths do not apply to traffic associated with a regional hospital. Trips associated with a regional hospital are typically longer and hence traffic emissions attributable to the Project are higher. In addition, ar, independent review of the focused EIR's traffic analysis found a considerable underestimate of traffic generated by the Project, which is not reflected in the URBEMIS2002 default assumptions for traffic. (See Brohard 10/0519.) Consequently, emissions associated with Project traffic are also underestimated. The'focused EIR's emissions estimates for Project traffic must be modified to reflect the Project's actual traffic characteristics. 19 Tom Brohard, Brohard and Associates, Letter to Gloria D. Smith, Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo, Re: Review of Traffic Portions of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project Focused Environmental Impact Report in the City of Temecula, October 26, 2005. , 1818.003. . October 28, 2005 Page 26 P. The Focused EIR Failed to Include Secondary Emissions From Electricity Generation CEQA requires that an EIR identify direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a).) The Project will require a substantial amount of electricity, which generates so-called indirect or secondary emissions. The focused Em mentions that air pollutant emissions will be generated due to the consumption of electricity and states that these regional emissions were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. (Focused Em, p. 4-24.) Yet the focused Em fails to account for these emissions in its presentation of regional emissions associated with the operational phase ofthe Project. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-25, Table 4-6.) A considerable share of the electricity delivered to the SoCAB is generated by coal-fired power plants, which generate substantial particulate matter and S02 emissions. The focused ErR should be revised to include emissions from electricity . . generation. Q. The Focused EIR Failed To Identify Increased Ozone Formation Due To Urban Heat Island Effect The Project would develop 35.31 acres of largely open grass-covered land. The focused EIR states that lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape areas.20 (Focused Em, at pp. 3-3 and 3-7.) The Project would add several buildings, parking lots, roads, and roofs, thus increasing the amount of existing blacktop. Black surfaces absorb about 85% to 95% of the sunlight that falls on them, becoming one of the hottest surfaces in urban areas. The hot surfaces of pavement and similarly dark roofs quickly warm the air over urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." On a clear summer afternoon, the air temperature in urban areas can be 2 F to 9 F hotter than the surrounding rural area. 'l'he elevated temperature increases cooling energy demand, accelerates the rate of smog production, and increases evaporative losses of organic compounds from gasoline tanks of vehicles parked over the hot surfaces. 20 The Site Plan provided in the Draft Em suggests a considerably larger percentage of buildings and parking spaces and lower percelltage oflandscaped areas. (Draft EIR, p. 3-5, Figure 3-2.) . 1818-003. . . . October 28, 2005 Page 27 Conversion of open, grass-covered land to build-out areas would increase local ambient temperatures, thereby contributing to the urban heat island effect and increasing the local formation of ozone. Thus, the urban heat island effect would exacerbate existing exceedances of the ozone standards in the Project vicinity. The SoCAB is not in compliance with either federal or State ozone standards. Thus, the Project would directly contribute to existing exceedances of the federal and State ozone standards, which is a significant impact. (See Kings County Farm Bureau u. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692) This is a significant impact that was not discussed in the focused Em and is absolutely feasible to mitigate. R. The EIR Fails to Identify Important Water Quality Issues The Project site lies within the San Diego Basin, which encompasses Temecula and the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-32.) Murrieta Creek is a tributary to Temecula Creek and is located downstream of the Project. Significantly, the focused Em failed to disclose that a twelve-mile segment of Murrieta Creek is listed on the State Water Resources Control Board's 303(d) list (pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act's section 303(d)) as an impaired water body for phosphorous pollution. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has listed sources polluting the creek to include urban runoff and storm sewers, unknown nonpoint sources, and unknown point sources.21 The focused ErR omits from its hydrology analysis the potential for the Project to add additional phosphorous pollution into Murrieta Creek, further impairing the creek's water quality in violation of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, an 18-mile portion of the Santa Margarita River, the primary . drainage course within the Planning Area, is also listed as impaired for phosphorous from the same sources. The focused Em states that Murrieta Creek is one of two main tributaries to the Santa Margarita River: 'The creeks drain the inland portion of the Santa Margarita River Basin and join with the Santa Margarita River at Temecula Canyon." (Focused Em, at p. 4-32.) Again, the focused Em omits from its hydrology analysis the potential for the Project to add additional phosphorous pollution into regional water bodies such as the Santa Margarita River, further. impairing its water quality in violation of the Clean Water. Act. 21 (htto:/lwww.waterboards.ca...ov/tmdlldocs/2002ree:9303dlist.n<Ifl. 181s.o03a . October 28, 2005 Page 28 The Regional Board's total maximum daily load criteria ("TMDL") classified Murrieta Creek as "low," nevertheless, the potential for additional phosphorous contamination from the Project should be evaluated in the a full DEIR. Urban runoff typically contains phosphorous as a main pollution component. Since potential exists for phosphorous contamination to travel downstream into the Santa Margarita River, further degrading its water quality, it is imperative that mitigation measures are included as specific best management practices ("BMPs") which describe how phosphorous contamination will be prevented from entering Murrieta Creek. Furthermore, the focused EIR states that flooding of Murrieta Creek banks has occurred during times of heavy rain: "Frequent overtopping of the Murrieta Creek channel by floodwaters in a number of channel reaches, flood inundation of structures with attendant damages, and other water-related problems are caused during major rainstorms, resulting in increased emergency costs, automobile damage, and . traffic disruption. Murrieta Creek has been altered since the late 1800s and has been channelized for flood control purposes since the 1930s. Restoration of the natural functions of the creek is planned, including the banks, channel invert, tributaries and floodplain." (City of Temecula General Plan, at p- 5.8- 3) It is important that this flood potential be mitigated prior to development to protect water quality of Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. Flooding of the developed site can contribute urban contaminates to the creek, which include but are not limited to debris, oil, grease, herbicides, and nutrients from fertilizers such as phosphorous. Water quality omissions of this magnitude in a project level CEQA document are impermissible, and can only be remedied through circulation of a full Em. S. The EIR Fails to Disclose The Fact That the Project Cannot Meet NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 Requirements Applicants of construction projects disturbing one or more acres of soil are required to file for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB"), Order No. 99-08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). The proposed 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 29 Project is thus subject to the NPDES General Permit requirements. In addition, the General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must contain: . a site map which shows the construction site perimeter; · existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points; · general topography both before and after construction; · . drainage patterns across the project. In addition, any SWPPP must include BMPs the discharger will implement to protect storm water runoff. The focused Em fails to analyze whether the proposed Project will meet the NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 requirements. It likewise omits a discussion of storm water discharge and the adoption of a SWPPP. Finally the focused EIR does not include specific mitigation BMPs for both of the above- described requirements. With respect to post-construction, the focused Em omits the discussion of post-construction storm water BMPs as required in Sections A of any SWPPP in accordance with NPDES General Permit. Given post-construction adverse impacts on water quality associated with the Project's operation, such as anticipated water pollution due to increased traffic volumes, typical landscaping upkeep, and . equestrian uses of trails, discussion of post-construction stormwater BMPs is critical to ascertain the effectiveness of these BMPs to mitigate such operational impacts and meet applicable water quality attainment objectives. Finally, the focused Em omits the inclusion of water quality monitoring programs as required in Sections B of any SWPPP. This section of an NPDES permit requires that a SWPPP also include a sampling and analysis strategy, and sampling schedule for discharges from construction activities that directly impact water bodies listed on the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Section 303(d) impaired water bodies list for sedimentation. Since both Murrieta Creek and Santa Margarita River are listed on the Regional Board's 303(d) list as impaired for phosphorous, a full EIR should be prepared to include a monitoring plan for the establishment of baseline water quality conditions, prior to construction, to evaluate 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 30 and validate the effectiveness of the BMPs, to measure the effectiveness of the BMPs and avoid further degradation of the impaired waterways. T. The EIR Contains an Inadequate Water Supply Assessment The focused Em's water supply and impacts analysis fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA, California Water Code section 10910, and S.B. 610. In essence, these legal requirements mandate that a local public water system, here the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), prepare a Water Supply Assessment ryvSA) for new development proposals. The City attached a WSA to Appendix G of the focused ErR. However the assessment must be revised as it is insufficient under SB 610 because it does not comply with the following S.B. 610 requirements: Groundwater - Basin Description, PWS Pumping, and Sufficiency Analysis 10910. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the Water Supply Assessment: . . (3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past fiue years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably auailable, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdiuision (b) from any basin from which the proposed project will be. The City admits that additional water supply will come via local groundwater sources: ''To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the RCWD intends to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the following alternatives: (1) Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned RCWD-owned wells. . . " (Focused Em, at p. 4-34) 1818-0030 . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 31 However, the Project's WSA does not include a "detailed description and analysis" of the most recent groundwater usage, including source locations and pumped volumes for the past five years, nor does it provide a detailed description of projected water usage volumes, as mandated by points (3) and (4), above. Additionally, according to the WSA regarding groundwater volume: "The amount of groundwater which can be produced varies due to 'such factors as rainfall, recharge area and amount and location of well pumping capacity." (WSA, at p. 7) With respect to a drought with decreased surface water flows, the WSA states: "increased groundwater extractions along with implementation of conservation and other measures" will make up the difference. This analysis is wholly inadequate because without calculated projected groundwater volumes, it is impossible for the City or RCWD to guarantee that groundwater will be an adequate and reliable source. A full Em must quantify the range of variable groundwater volumes, and then evaluate the most conservative scenario to demonstrate quantitatively that water demand will still be achieved. Absent such an analysis, the whole WSA and groundwater discussion is inadequate. Accordingly, the City must prepare a full EIR that includes a proper WSA. U. The EIR Fails to Identify Important Traffic Impacts The focused EIR, its Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and its Appendix D provide only a cursory analysis of the actual traffic and circulation impacts that result from the construction and operation of the City's hospital project. The City's most glaring traffic analysis deficiencies and omissions are enumerated below. First, flaws in the focused EIR's traffic analysis stem in part from the City's failure to properly calculate the phasing for the Project's construction. Regarding Project phasing, the focused ErR states: "Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3 story, 60,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction of adequate surface parking to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 32 Phase IB consists of construction of the one story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6-story tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase rB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate 320 bed configuration with the addition of the 5 story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase IIr will add a 4 story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one story, 10,000 square foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. Phase V will be construction of the 8,000 square foot fitness center and the jogging trail. . Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated to occur concurrently and to last approximately 12 months." (Focused EIR, at pp. 3-7 and 3-8) Such construction phasing, according to the focused EIR, will take 36 months. Importantly, however, it is likely that a number of months or years will pass between construction activities associated with each of the three major construction phases. Thus, the focused Em does not properly evaluate baseline conditions in concert with the phasing of construction for the proposed Project. The failure of the focused Em to analyze traffic impacts associated with the major construction phases as well as buildout of the entire Project provides no assurance that implementation of mitigation measures will be linked to significant traffic impacts caused by the phased development of the Project. Next, the focused EIR's Traffic Impact Analysis and Appendix D contain the City's traffic analysis for the proposed Project. Unfortunately, these analyses include significant errors in the calculation of AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily trips that will be generated by the proposed Project. Use of average trip rates per hospital bed, together with the omission of all trips associated with the 10,000 . 18111-003. . . . October 28, 2005 Page 33 square-foot cancer center and the 8,000 square-foot fitness center, significantly understates the Project trip generation and the resulting traffic impacts. Based on these errors in trip calculations, major revisions to the focused Em are required to address the significant impacts that the Project will have on traffic. The focused EIR must use the higher trip forecasts discussed below to properly identify the Project traffic impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures. Until the City conducts a proper traffic analysis, trip forecasts are significantly below those that should have been calculated for the Project as follows: 1. The Project Will Provide Additional Parking Spaces On Site According to the focused EIR, "...the total parking spaces provided will be 1,278 which exceeds the City's parking standards which requires 663 parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the Project, for which the Development Code requires one space per 3 beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained in the Development Code because the Code requirements do not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common in most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason." (Focused EIR, at p. 3-8 note 2.) Thus, the City's constructing nearly double the amount of parking spaces on site over the City requirements in its Development Code is a strong indication that the Project will generate more than the average number of vehicle trips, particularly since the site is not currently served by bus or other public transit. Likewise, the City's unrealistically low trip rates enumerated in its focused EIR do not provide a proper basis for analysis of reasonably foreseeable conditions associated with the City's intent to construct nearly double the parking spaces required by the its own Development Code. In addition, the low trip rates clearly do not provide an evaluation of the "worst case" condition. 2. The City Relied Upon A Low Trip Rate Per Hospital Bed Analysis The focused EIR relied upon a trip rate of 20 daily trips per hospital bed published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to develop its forecasts of daily, AM and PM peak hour trips. (Focused EIR, at section 4.6) For 1818.003a . October 28, 2005 Page 34 the initial phase with 170 beds, 3,400 daily trips including 272 trips in the AM peak hour and 340 trips in the PM peak hour were forecast. For the buildout of 320 beds, 6,400 daily trips including 512 trips in the AM peak hour and 640 trips in the PM peak hour were forecast. These unreasonably low trip generation forecasts for the 170 bed hospital and the 320 bed hospital were relied upon throughout the focused Em. In addition.to trip rates per bed, SANDAG has also published rates of 25 daily trips per 1,000 square feet for hospitals, with 8 percent of the daily trips in the AM peak hour and 10 percent of the daily trips in the PM peak hour. Applying the SANDAG trip rate per 1,000 square feet indicates the initial phase ofthe hospital building with 285,405 square feet will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. For the buildout of 408,160 square feet, the hospital portion of the proposed project will generate 10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020 trips in the PM peak hour. With the additional parking provided on site and the absence of public transit services, the SANDAG trip rates per 1,000 square feet for the hospital . portion of the Project must be used to analyze and mitigate Project traffic impacts. Without such an analysis, the focused Em's traffic impacts are artificially low. 3. All Trips from Cancer Center and Fitness Center Were Omitted The focused Em indicates that the Project will also include a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness center. (Focused ErR, atp. 3-4) The traffic analysis is also misleading because the focused ErR fails to include the cancer center and fitness center in trip generation at buildout. (Focused Em, at Table 4-22 on p. 4-87) Instead, the focused Em dimInishes the trip generation numbersforecasted for buildout by only considering trips for a hospital containing 320 beds and 140,000 square feet of medical offices. This analysis is misleading and inaccurate because all trips associated with the cancer center and the fitness center were omitted from the focused Em's traffic analysis. A more reasonable calculation, for example, would include employing SANDAG data showing that, per 1,000 square-feet of hospital space, the 10,000 square-foot cancer center will generate 250 daily trips, including 20 trips in the AM peak hour and 25 trips in the PM peak hour. Also based on SANDAG data, per 1,000 square feet of hospital space, indicates the 8,000 square-foot fitness center will generate 200 daily trips including 16 trips in the AM peak hour and 20 trips in 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 35 the PM peak hour. An additional 450 daily trips including, 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 45 trips in the PM peak hour, from the cancer center and fitness center alone, is critical to an accurate analysis of Project trip generation forecasts, distributed to area roadway links and intersections, analyzed, and the resulting significant traffic impacts mitigated as necessary. Without this type of analysis, the focused EIR's traffic analysis is fatally flawed. 4. . Additional Phase I Project Trips Will Create Significant Traffic Impacts Next, with respect to Phase I construction, the focused Em incorrectly forecasts 3,400 daily trips with 272 trips in the AM peak hour and 340 trips in the PM peak hour for the 170 beds for Phase I. (Focused Em, at Table 4-21, p 4-81) A proper analysis of the Phase I hospital component indicates that the 285,405 square feet in Phase I will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. The 3,740 additional daily trips including 298 additional AM peak hour trips and 370 additional PM peak hour trips that will be generated by Phase I will significantly impact additional intersections and segments over and above those identified in the focused EIR. The focused EIR improperly omits all ofthese additional trips. These significant Phase I traffic impacts must be identified and mitigated as necessary to maintain the City's Level of Service (LOS) D standard. 5. Additional Buildout Trips Will Create Significant Traffic Impacts For buildout, the focused Em incorrectly forecasts 6,400 daily trips, with 512 trips in the AM peak hour and .640 trips in the PM peak hour for 320 hospital beds. (Focused Em, at Table 4-22, p. 4-87) A proper analysis indicates that the'408,160 square feet forecasted for buildout will generate 10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020 trips in the PM peak hour. Furthermore, 450 daily trips including 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 45 trips in the PM peak hour will be generated by the 10,000 square foot cancer center and the 8,000 square foot fitness center. The 4,250 additional daily trips including 344 additional AM peak hour trips and 425 additional PM peak hour trips that will be generated by the Project will significantly impact additional intersections and segments over and above those identified in the focused Em. Clearly, the City greatly underestimated the actual daily trips that will be generated by the Project. 1818-Q03a . October 28, 2005 Page 36 A full EIR must address these significant traffic impacts for buildout, and must identify and mitigate these impacts in order to meet the City's LOS D standard. As the foregoing illustrates, the focused EIR fails to identify numerous potentially significant impacts. Unquestionably, substantial evidence exists in the record for this Project supporting l'\ fair argument that significant Project impacts may occur. Accordingly, the City must complete and recirculate a full EIR in compliance with CEQA. VI. THE CITY'S EIR FAILS TO INCORPORATE EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT A. The Focused EIR Must Describe Effective Mitigation Measures for Each Significant Environmental Impact An Em must propose and describe mitigation measures sufficient to . minimize the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the ErR. (CEQA sections 21002.1(a), 21l00(b)(3).) Also, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (CEQA Guidelines section 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (Id. at section 15126.4(a)(I)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved. The City's administrative record is clearly deficient with respect to mitigating the impacts in all of the affected resource areas. 'In particular, CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts (C~QA sections 21002, 21081(a)) and describe those mitigation measures in the Em. (CEQA section 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4.) A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available).) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner . within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, 1818-003. . . . October 28, 2005 Page 37 legal, social and technolog-ical factors. (CEQA Guidelines section 15364.) Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments. (Id. at section 15126.4(a)(2).) Here, the focused EIR lacks effective mitigation for the following categories of impacts: air quality, traffic, parking, and circulation, geologic hazards and water quality. Additional mitigation measures must be included and a full EIR recirculated for public review. 1. The Focused EIR Does Not Provide Adequate Mitigation for Air Quality and Public Health Impacts The focused EIR improperly defers the development of most of its mitigation plans into the future without specifying any performance measures, including: Location of the staging area for construction (AQ-l); Transportation Demand Management Plan (AQ-2; Landscape Plan (AQ-4); Watering Program (AQ-6); and Fugitive Dust 'Control Program (AQ-7). Further, several of the mitigation measures (e.g., temporary landscaping, clean fueled vehicles, construction equipment energy efficiency) required by the focused EIR are worded ambiguously, e.g., "may require," "when feasible," or "reasonably possible," which renders them unenforceable as a practical matter. (Focust)d Em, at p. 4-26 to 4-29.) The focused EIR must specify specific performance measures and reasons for rejection of these measures if found not feasible or appropriate. By the focused Em's own admission of "significant unavoidable impacts" and as demonstrated in the comments above, impacts from construction and operation of the Project remain significant after implementation of the focused Em's proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, the City must impose all feasible mitigation to mitigate these significant impacts, which it did not. The comments below discuss the specific inadequacies of the focused Em's proposed mitigation program and propose mitigation measures that should be implemented to lessen or eliminate the significant adverse effects of Project construction and operation. 1818-0038 . October 28, 2005 Page 38 a. Additional Feasible Construction Mitigation The focused EIR finds significant and unavoidable NOx emissions from the Project. (Focused Em, at p. 4-29.) As discussed below, construction emissions are considerably underestimated, likely resulting in significant and unmitigated ROG, CO, and PMI0 emissions beyond what is reported by the focused EIR. Likewise, there are numerous other relevant and reasonable fugitive dust and diesel exhaust mitigation measures contained in the CEQA Guidelines and rules for air districts and other agencies that should also be required for this Project to mitigate its significant construction impacts. b. Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures Several agencies have conducted relevant and comprehensive studies of fugitive dust control measures to bring their region into compliance with national ambient air quality standards on PMI0. For example, the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") has sponsored research, passed regulations (e.g., . Rule 40322), and published guidelines that identify best management practices for controlling fugitive dusts at construction sites. The Rule 403 Implementation Handbook23 contains a comprehensive list of such measures, which should be incorporated into the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. (See Focused Em, at p. 4-27, Mitigation Measure AQ-7.) Clark County, Nevada, has also sponsored research, passed regulations (Rule 94), and published best management practices for controlling fugitive dust from construction activities.24 Clark County's Construction Actiuities Dust Control Handbook contains a comprehensive list of best 22 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 403, Fugitive Dust and Proposed Rule 1186, PMlO Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations, February 14, 1997. 23 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, january 1999_ .. P.M. FransioIi, PMlO Emissions Control Research Sponsored by Clark County, Nevada, Proceedings of the Air &Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, Orlando, FL, June 24-28, 2001. 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 39 management practices.25 Similarly, Arizona has developed guidance to control fugitive PMI0 emissions.26 Several of the measures included in these agency guidelines are feasible and therefore should be considered for adoption here under CEQA Guidelines ~~15126.4, 15091. Examples of such feasible mitigation measures are listed below: During clearing and grubbing, prewet surface soils where equipment will be operated; for areas without continuing construction, maintain live perennial vegetation and desert pavement; stabilize surface soil with dust palliative unless immediate construction is to continue; and use water or dust palliative to form crust on soil immediately following clearing/grubbing. (CCHD) Grade each phase separately, timed to coincide with construction phase or grade entire project, but apply chemical stabilizers or ground cover to graded areas where construction phase begins more than 60 days after grading phase ends. (Rule 403 Handbook) During initial grading, earth moving, or site preparation, projects 5 acres or greater may be required to construct a paved (or dust palliative treated) apron, at least 100 ft in length, onto the project site from the adjacent site if applicable. (BCAQMD) During cut and fill activities, prewater with sprinklers or wobblers to allow time for penetration; prewater with water trucks or water pulls to allow time for penetration; dig a test hole to depth of cut to determine if soils are moist at depth and continue to pre water if not moist to depth of cut; use water truck/pull to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent cuts; and apply water or dust palliative to form crust on soil following fill and compaction. (CCHD) For backfilling during earthmoving operations, water backfill material or apply dust palliative to maintain material moisture or to form crust when not actively handling; cover or enclose backfill material when not actively handling; mix backfill soil with water prior to moving; dedicate water 25 Clark County Department of Air Quality Management, Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook, March 18, 2003. 26 Ariwna Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy PM10 Best Available Control Measures, June 5, 200l. 1818-003. October 28, 2005 Page 40 truck or large hose to backfilling equipment and apply water as needed; . . water to form crust on soil immediately following backfilling; and empty loader bucket slowly; minimize drop height from loader bucket. (CCHD)27 For large tracts of disturbed land, prevent access by fencing, ditches, vegetation, berms, or other barriers; install perimeter wind barriers 3 to 5 feet high with low porosity; plant perimeter vegetation early; and for long-term stabilization, stabilize disturbed soil with dust palliative or vegetation or pave or apply surface rock. (CCHD) Barriers with 50 percent or less porosity located adjacent to roadways to reduce windblown material leaving a site. (Rule 403 Handbook) In staging areas, limit size of area; apply water to surface soils where support equipment and vehicles are operated; limit vehicle speeds to 15 mph; and limit ingress and egress points. (CCHD) Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. (SJVUAPCD, ADEQ) For stockpiles, maintain at optimum moisture content; remove material from downwind side; avoid steep sides or faces; and stabilize material following stockpile-related activity_ (CCHD) When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. (BAAQMD, SJVUAPCD, Rule 403 Handbook, ADEQ, SLOCAPCD) Where feasible, use bedliners in bottom-dumping haul vehicles. (Rule 403 Handbook) Empty loader bucket slowly and minimize drop height from loader bucket. (CCHD) 27 Tbe following acronyms are used in this listing of mitigation measures: ADEQ = Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BCAQMD = Butte County Air Quality Management District; CCHD = Clark County (Nevada) Health District; MBUAPCD = Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; SBCAPCD = Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District; SJVUAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; SLOCAPCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. 1818-0030 . . . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 41 Clean wheels and undercarriage of haul trucks prior to leaving construction site. (CCHD) Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of mud on to public roads. (SBCAPCD) Install and maintain trackout control devices in effective condition at all access points where paved and unpaved access or travel routes intersect. (CCHD) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. (SLOCAPCD) Pave all roads on construction sites. (MBUAPCD) To prevent trackout, pave construction roadways as early as possible; install gravel pads; install wheel shakers or wheel washers, and limit site access. (CCHD, SLOCAPCD) While clearing forms, use single stage pours where allowed; use water spray to clear forms; use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; use industrial shop vacuum to clear forms; and avoid use of high pressure air to blow soil and debris from the form. (CCHD) Limit fugitive dust sources to 20 percent opacity. (ADEQ) Require a dust control plan for earthmoving operations. (ADEQ) Prior to land use clearance, the applicant shall include, as a note on a separate informational sheet to be recorded with map, these dust control requirements. All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD) The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take. corrective action within 24 hrs. (BCAQMD, CCHD) While portions of some of these measures are included in the focused EIR's mitigation measures, the above measures are far more protective and should all be 1818-0038 . October 28, 2005 Page 42 required in the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. All of these measures are feasible and various combinations of them are routinely required elsewhere to reduce fugitive PMI0 emissions. Bee, for example, the fugitive dust control program for the Big Dig (Kasprak and Stakutis 200028), for the EI Toro Reuse focused EIR,29 and for the Padres Ballpark Final Em.3o c. Diesel Exhaust Mitigation Measures There are a number of additional mitigation measures that are routinely required as CEQA mitigation by air districts and other agencies in California for construction projects, (e.g., the mitigation programs routinely implemented by the SMAQMD and California Energy Commission ("CEC") decisions), including: Limiting the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use. (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 53); Conversion to cleaner engines; Use of cleaner (reduced sulfur) fuel; Add-on control devices, e.g., particulate traps, catalytic oxidizers; Buffer zone between facility and sensitive receptors; Installation of high pressure injectors on diesel construction equipment; Restricting engine size of construction equipment to the minimum practical size; Electrification of construction equipment; . 28 A Kasprak and P A. Stakutis, A Comprehensive Air Quality Control Program for a Large Roadway Tunnel Project, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 93'" Annual Conference, June 18-22, 2000. 29 County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS El Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County International Airport, Draft Supplemental Analysis, Volume 1, April 2001, pp. 2-121 to 2-123. 30 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Centre City Redevelopment Project and Addressing the Centre City Community flan and Related Documents for the Proposed Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, V. IV. Responses to Comments, September 13, 1999, pp. IV-254 to IV-256. 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 43 Substitution of gasoline-powered for diesel-powered construction equipment; Use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, using, e.g., compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel; Implementation of activity management techniques including a) development of a comprehensive construction management plan designed to minimize the number of large construction equipment operating during any given time period; b) scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions; c) limitation of the length of construction work-day period; and d) phasing of construction activities; Installation of catalytic converters on gasoline. powered equipment, if feasible; Minimization of construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and by providing for lunch onsite; Lengthening of construction period during smog season (May through October), so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time; Utilization of new technologies to control ozone precursor emissions as they become available and feasible; Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators; and Emission offsets ifROG or NOx emissions exceed 6.0 tons/quarter. The following discusses the use and feasibility of construction equipment certified by CARB, post-combustion controls, and the use of PuriNOx, an alternative diesel formulation. i. CARB-certified Construction Equipment Both the U.S. EPA and CARB have established emission limits on new off-road engines. CARB-certified off-road engines are engines that are 3 years old or less at the time of use and which comply with these new low emission limits. This equipment is widely available in the construction fleet. The use of CARB- certified equipment should be required for this Project. 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 44 For example, the SMAQMD and other agencies require the use of at least 20 percent CARB-certified off-road engines in the mix of construction equipment operating on-site, or alternatively, setting a NOx, ROG, and/or PMI0 emission reduction goal for the construction fleet. A similar measure has been adopted by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ('TNRCC") for the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston areas. (Rennie et al. 2001.31) The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") has also recommended this measure to address the air quality problems in the Phoenix area. (ADEQ 11/9/00, pp. 19-24.) ii. Post-combustion Controls Post-combustion controls, such as oxidation catalysts and particulate filters, are devices that are installed downstream of the engine on the tailpipe to treat the exhaust. These devices are now widely used on construction equipment and are capable of removing over 90% of the PMI0, CO, and ROG from engine exhaust, depending on the fuel and specific engine. The most common and widely used post- combustion control devices are particulate traps (i.e., soot filters), oxidation catalysts, and combinations thereof. The many variants of these devices have recently been identified, evaluated, and comprehensively reviewed by CARB32 and others.33 . The City should avail itself of these devices as most are commonly required as mitigation for construction emissions, which are similar to Project operations. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (''MTA'') implemented a voluntary program in the fall of 1998 which resulted in retrofitting 70 pieces of construction equipment with oxidation catalysts (Kasprak et al. 200134) at the "Big Dig," the massive, 5- 3l-B.G. Rennie, L. Fiffick, D. Huckabay, and B. Ubanwa, Heavy Duty Diesel Engincs Retrofit Programs as a Part of Houston SIP, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Managemcnt Association's 94th Annual Confercnce & Exhibition, June 24--28, 200l. 32 California Air Resources Board, Risk Rcduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehiclcs, October 2000; California Air Resources Board, Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines, October 2000. 33 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, Demonstration of Advanced Emission Control Technologies Enabling Diescl-Powered Heavy.Duty Engines to Achieve Low Emission Levels, Final Report, June 1999. .. A. Kasprak, G. Schattanek, and P.K Wan, Emission Reduction Retrofit Program for Construction Equipment ofthe Central ArterylTuonel Project, Proccedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001. Also see: www.coa."ov/OMS/retrofitidocumentslb{lrdi" case 01.htm. accessed October 26, 2005. 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 45 year, $10 billion-plus Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston's North End and one of the largest infrastructure construction projects in the country. These controls have also been widely required to mitigate construction emissions in California. The CEC, which follows a CEQA-equivalent process in licensing of new power plants larger than 50 megawatts ("MW"), has required these devices on many projects. The Sunrise Power Project was recently constructed using this equipment.35 No problems were encountered. Several other 500+MW power plants have been licensed and constructed successfully using these controls, including High Desert36, Elk Hills37, Pastoria38, Western Midway-Sunset39, Mountain View, 40 and Contra Costa,41 among others. (All of the CEC citing decisions are posted at www.energy.ca.gov under the name ofthe individual facility.) Post-combustion controls have also been required as conventional CEQA mitigation in Ems. The El Toro Reuse focused Em42, page 2-124, AQ-llk and AQ- 111, required the use of particulate traps with a minimum 80% PMlO efficiency and selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") or comparable technology with a minimum 70% NOx reduction on all off-road construction equipment. The Stanford University 35 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Sunrise Power Project, December 2000, Condition AQ-C3, p. 120. 36 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, High Desert Power Project, May 2000, Condition AQ-3(0), p. 107. 37 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Elk Hills Power Project, December 2000. Condition AQ-C2(3), p. 123. 38 California Energy Commissio~, Commission Decision, Pastoria Energy Facility, December 2000, Condition AQ-C3, p. 108. 39 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Western Midway Sunset Power Project, March 2001, Condition AQ-C2, p. 114. <0 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Mountain View Power Project, March 2001, Condition AQ-C2, p. 34. .. California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project, May ,2001, Condition AQC-2, p. 12. "'County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report, No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse ofMCAS El Tom and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County International Airport, April 200l. 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 46 General Use Permit Application focused Em43, page 4.11-10, AQ-l, required a range of measures to minimize diesel engine exhaust, ineluding catalytic converters and particulate traps. The City of San Diego in the Padres Ballpark Final Em44 required the control of 95% of engine exhaust emissions, using, among others, oxidation catalysts, particulate filters, and "Blue Sky" low-emission engines. Similarly, the Port of Oakland required the use of new engines or post-combustion controls on trucks serving its Vision 2000 expansion project. The Port's air quality mitigation program is now partially in place and has been very successful in reducing emissions.45 All of these post-combustion controls are feasible for construction of this Project. Therefore, a proposed Em should be prepared requiring the use of post- combustion controls on off-road equipment specifying target control levels. iii. PuriNOx Alternate diesel fuels exist that achieve PMlO and NOx reductions. PuriNOx . is an alternative diesel formulation that was verified by CARB on January 31, 200146 as achieving a 14% reduction inNOx and a 63% reduction in PMI0 compared to CARB diesel. It can be used in any direct-injection, heavy-duty compression ignition engine and is compatible with existing engines and existing storage, distribution, and vehicle fueling facilities. Operational experience indicates little or no difference in performance and startup time, no discernable operational differences, no increased engine noise, and significantly reduced visible smoke. (Hagstrand 6/0447.) 43 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR Stanford University Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit Application, June 23, 2000. << City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, September 13, 1999 and Draft Subsequent EIR, May 12, 1999, , page IV-262, 18.A.89. .. Port of Oakland, Summary Report #5, Vision 2000 Air Quality Mitigation Program, February 2002. <6 Letter from Dean C. Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, to Thomas J. Sheahan, Lubrizol, Verification of Lubrizol Corp. PuriNOx Fuel, January 31, 2001, htto:/Iwww.arb.ca...ov/fuelsldiesellaltdiesellaltdiesel.htm. accessed June 18. 2004. <7 Personal communication, Petra PlesslPhyllis Fox with Hep Hepner, Ramos Oil Co., Dixon, CA, (916-371-3289, ext. 242) and Bill Hagstrand, Lubrizol (440-347-6592), March and June 2004. 1818-003a . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 47 This fuel has been successfully used in heavy-duty off-road and on-road equipment, inCluding by the Tri-Delta Transit Authority fleet in Contra Costa County, by the County of Sacramento at the Keifer Landfill and North Transfer station, in off-road construction equipment at very large residential construction projects in Sacramento, in truck fleets operated by Pacific Cement in San Francisco and Ramos Oil in Dixon, in yard hostlers at the Port of Long Beach, in off-road equipment operated by Hanson Aggregate in San Francisco, and in yard haulers at the Port of Houston. (Howes 4/0048 and Hagstrand 6/04.) Six yard tractors have been operating on PuriNOx at the Port of Houston since April 2000. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") has also approved PuriNOx fuel for funding under Texas Senate Bill 5. PuriNOx fuel is available from fuel distributor Chevron Texaco in Los Angeles and is competitively priced at a surcharge over regular diesel of about 10 cents per gallon.49 It has been required as mitigation for construction exhaust emission impacts. For example, the NASA Ames Development Plan focused Environmental Impact Statement, 50 page 4.4-34, requires "where reasonable and feasible, use alternative diesel fuels." See also construction exhaust mitigation in the Bickford Ranch Final Em, page 1-24, requiring 10% to 20% NOx emission reductions to be achieved by both engine selection and fuel selection. ("Includes the use of emulsified fuel in non-certified engines...".) d. Additional Feasible Operational Mitigation The focused EIR concludes that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, emissions of CO and ROG from operation of the hospital and other on-site facilities will remain significant. The focused EIR states that "[e]ven with measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance" and concludes that "[l]ong-term air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable." (Focused Em, at p. 4-29.) Yet, the focused Em imposes a total of only five mitigation measures that address operational emissions, specifically, AQ-2 incorporation and encouragement of .. P. Howes, An Evaluation of the Effects of PuriNOx™ on Exhaust Emissions from Yard Haulers at the Port of Houston, April 2000. .. Personal communication, Petra Pless with Bill Hagstraod, Lubrizol (440-347-6592), June 21, 2004. 50 NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, November 200l. 1818-003a . October 28, 2005 Page 48 . Transportation Demand Management techniques (''TDM''); AQ-3 incorporation of energy efficiency standards for buildings; AQ-4 submission of a landscape plan; AQ- .16 enclosure and cover of refuse areas; and AQ-17 promotion of alternative transportation. (Focused Em, at pp. 4-26 through 4-28.) By the focused Em's own admission, these mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce the significant impacts from operational emissions to less than significance for CO and ROG, resulting in significant unmitigated impacts from Project operational emissions. (Focused Em, at p. 4-29.) Further, the focused Em considerably underestimates Project operational emissions of PMlO and NOx, which likely also exceed the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance thresholds. The focused Em does not contain any discussion why no additional mitigation measures were considered to reduce the Project's significant impacts on air quality. As discussed below, numerous other mitigation measures exist that are routinely required as CEQA mitigation and should have been required for the Project. For example, the rnitial Study for the Project recommends the following two mitigation measures for emissions from Project operations that were not incorporated into the focused Em: . Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline- powered engines where feasible; and Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements. (NOPlInitial Study, pp. 9-11.) e. Operational Traffic Mitigation Measures The following traffic mitigation measures are routinely required elsewhere to mitigate significant impacts from a project and should be required to mitigate the Project's significant NOx, ROG, and PMI0 impacts: Encourage carpoollvanpool program; Provide on-site child care or contribute to off-site child care within walking distance; Provide preferential parking for carpoollvanpool vehicles; . 1818-003. . . . October 28, 2005 Page 49 Provide secure, weather-protected bicycle parking for employees; Provide direct safe, direct bicycle access to adjacent bicycle routes; Provide showers and lockers for employees bicycling or walking to work; Short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-commute trips; Connect bicycle lanes/paths to city-wide network; Design and locate buildings to facilitate transit access, e.g., locate building entrances near transit stops, eiiminate building setbacks, etc.; Construct transit facilities such as bus turnoutslbus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc.; Provide shuttle service to food service establishments/commercial areas; Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multimodal centers; Implement parking fee for single-occupancy vehicle commuters; Implement parking cash-out program for non-driving employees; Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and adjacent development; Implement compressed work week schedule; rmplement home-based telecommuting program; Provide electric vehicle ("EV") and compressed natural gas ("CNG") vehicles in vehicle fleets; Install EV charging facilities; Install CNG fueling facility; Providepreferential parking locations for EVs and CNG vehicles; and Charge reduced or no parking fee for EV sand CNG vehicles; The Lent Ranch Final Ern,51 for example, requires most of these measures. The NASA Ames Development Plan focused Environmental Impact Statement 51 City of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report, for example Table 4.3-21, page 3.0-96, and Table 12-2, October 2000_ . 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 50 ("EIS")52 would implement an aggressive transportation demand management program ("TDM") to reduce trip generation by at least 22 percent. The Stanford University focused Community Plan and General Use Permit focused EIR53 adopts all applicable Bay Area TDMs. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR54 requires that emissions be reduced by 40% by implementing many of these measures. The Old Greenwood Planned Development focused Em55 requires, among others, paying an air quality mitigation fee to offset PMI0 emissions from vehicle exhaust and re-entrained road dust to zero. Therefore, the above-listed measures should be assumed feasible unless otherwise demonstrated, and used by this Project to reduce traffic emissions to a less than significant level. f. Operational Area Mitigation Measures The City's General Plan contains the following two operational mitigation measures that are not required by the focused Em: Optimize building sites and orientation to take advantage of shading and . windbreak trees and reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling; and Design buildings to optimize natural lighting, provide for task lighting, and specific high.efficiency electric lighting. (General Plan, p. AQ-8_) In addition to the mitigation measures proposed by the focused Em and contained in the City's General Plan, operational area emissions can also be mitigated by controlling other sources of emissions from the Project, including exhaust emissions from landscaping equipment, emissions from natural gas combustion for heating/air-conditioning, increased ozone production from the heat island effect, and indirect emissions from electricity generation. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines of other air districts identify numerous other feasible measures . 52 NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, pp. 0.11 to 0-16, November 2001. 63 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Stanford University Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit Application, Table 4.11-6, June 23, 2000. 54 County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Section 8.3.2 and 8.4, November 13, 2000. " City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned Development, pp_ 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002. 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 51 for commercial/industrial operations. Some of these additional measures, which are routinely required as mitigation in other Ems56 include: Use electric lawn and garden equipment for landscaping (BAAQMD); Use electrically or CNG-powered specialty equipment; e.g., utility carts (BAAQMD); Use propane-powered specialty equipment, e.g., forklifts, utility carts, etc. (BAAQMD); Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements (SLOAPCD57, SCAQMD58); Orient buildings to maximize standard heating and cooling (SLOAPCD) and include passive solar design, e.g., day-lighting (SCAQMD, SBAPCD59, BCAQMD60); Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD); Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD); Use energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioning (SCAQMD, BCAQMD); Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD) and built-in energy-efficient appliances (SLOAPCD); Use double-paned windows (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD); 56 For example: City of Elk GrO\e, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Table 4.3-5, p_ 3.0-96, October 2000; County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, pp. 8-20 to 8-22, November 13, 2000; Sacramento County, East Franklin Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report, Table ES-1; and Appendix D, February 2000; City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned Development, pp. 4.5.10 to 4.5-13, February 2002. 57 San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August 1997. 58 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Cl';QA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. 69 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Qua.lity Sections in Environmental Documents, September 1997. 60 Butte County Air Quality Management District, Indirect Source Review Guidelines, March 1997. 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 52 Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD); Use light-colored roof materials (SCAQMD) and paint (SBAPCD) to reflect heat; Install solar coolinglheating (SBAPCD); rnstall solar water heater for at least 25% of the building floor area (BCAQMD); Substitute materials, e.g., use water-based paint (SCAQMD); Modify manufacturing processes, e.g., reduce process stages, closed loop- systems, materials recycling (SCAQMD); Install resource recovery systems that redirect chemicals to new production processes (SCAQMD); Use solar or low-emission water heaters (SCAQMD); Use centralized water-heating systems (SCAQMD, VCAPCD61); Use concrete or other non-pollutant materials for parking lots instead of asphalt (SBAPCD); . Pay an air quality mitigation fee; Secure emission offsets; Landscape with drought-resistant species, and use groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection; Provide electric maintenance equipment; Use ozone-destruction catalyst on air condition systems; and Reduce standard paving by 20%. Further, some air districts recommend that lllrge projects that cannot be fully mitigated with on-site measures, should implement off-site mitigation measures. For example: 61 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix G-94, Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, October 1989. 1818-oo3a . ./ . October 28, 2005 Page 53 Retrofit existing homes and businesses in the project area with approved energy conservation devices (SLOAPCD); Replace/repower school/transit bus with cleaner vehicles (SLOAPCD); Construct satellite workstations (SLOAPCD); Fund a program to buy and scrap older, high-emission vehicles (SLOAPCD); Contribute to an off-site TDM fund (VCAPCD); Repair smog-check waived vehicles (SLOAPCD); Introduce electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program (SLOAPCD); and Retrofit/purchase clean heavy-duty trucks, construction equipment, diesel locomotives, and marine vessels (SLOAPCD). . g. Mitigation For Urban Heat Island Effect A number ofthe above discussed mitigation measures will reduce the urban heat island effect. The feasibility of two of these measures, reduction of standard paving by 20% and use of Energy Star roof products, are discussed in the following comments in more detail. i. Reduction Of Standard Paving By 20% The heat island effect can be mitigated by reflecting the sunlight off the pavement before it heats up through use of lighter-colored, reflective pavement materials. These materials reduce the urban heat island effect, reducing the formation of ozone, and reducing evaporative emissions from vehicles that park on and use the pavement, thus reducing traffic emissions. This can be accomplished by using grass paving or reflective surfaces on unshaded parking lots, driveways, and fire lanes to reduce standard paving by 20%. This measure is widely used, technically feasible, provides air quality benefits, and is economic. . There are a large number of options that can be used to comply with this measure, ranging from porous block pavement systems to conventional asphalt pavements using light aggregate, to conventional concrete pavements. Some are comparable in cost to conventional pavements and have added benefits besides reducing air quality impacts. 1818-003a . October 28, 2005 Page 54 ii. Use Of Energy Star Roof Products Most commercial and residential buildings have dark roofs. Dark roofs absorb 80% to 90% of the incident suiilight, heating the roof and plenum space. Because the air distribution system is typically installed in the plenum space between the roof deck and the dropped ceiling over the finished interior space, this raises the summertime cooling demand. rn addition, heating the roof heats the air that passes over the roof. Thus, the entire region around a dark roof becomes warmer, increasing the formation of ozone. As discussed above, dark roofs (and parking lots) quickly warm the air over urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." The additional air conditioning demand created by this temperature effect is responsible for 5% to 10% of urban peak electric demand. The increased power demand leads to higher emissions from power plants. This increase in temperature causes a 10% to 20% increase in urban ozone, and in some cases, generates as much ozone as all on- . road motor vehicles.62 Measures to reverse the heat island effect include reflective roofs and pavements. Intercepting the sunlight before it heats a building keeps its surface cooler and reduces the heat flow into the building. This reduces the demand for air conditioning. This can be accomplished by using light-colored, reflective roofs. A light-colored roof can reduce the amount of energy needed for cooling by 20% to 70%, depending on the amount of insulation under the roof and design of the air ducting system. This is achieved by reflecting most of the energy, rather than absorbing it. The difference between the roof surface and ambient air temperatures may be as high as 90 F, while for reflective roofs, the difference is only about 18 F. This reduces peak cooling demand, cooling costs, the size of the HV AC system, and the rating and amount of insulation required in a building, and increases the lifetime of the roof. This also reduces air pollution by reducing the amount of extemal power that must be produced and the amount of ambient ozone that is formed in the vicinity of the development from the heat island effect. 62 Akbari H, Cool Roofs Save Energy, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, Pt_ 1, 1998; Taha H, Modeling the Impacts of Large-Scale Albedo Changes on Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin, Atmospheric Environment, v. 31, no. 11, 1997, pp. 1667-1676. 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 55 Normal asphalt-based roofing products typically have a reflectivity of 10% to 20%.' Energy Star-labeled roof products are roofmg products certified to achieve at least 65% reflectivity and to maintain a reflectivity of 50% under normal conditions for 3 years after installation. The program is sponsored by the U.S. EPA and the Department of Energy. There are currently over 115 manufacturers enrolled in the program. Reflective roofing is also recognized as an acceptable design option in the latest edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers ("ASHRAE") Standards 90.163 and 90.2 on energy-efficient buildings. Energy Star roof products are economical to apply and maintain and can be cheaper than or comparable to conventional roofing products, which cost from $1.50 to $2.50 per square foot installed.64 Cool roofs come in a variety of styles, including reflective coatings, reflective membranes, or metal roofs made of galvanized or other coated metal. Coatings have a consistency of thick paint and cost from $0.75 to $1.50 per square foot installed. Membranes are single-ply, pre-fabricated sheets applied in a single layer, typically made of PVC (poly vinyl chloride), TPO (tripolymer olefin), Hypalon, or CPA (copolymer alloy) and cost from $1.50 to $3.00 per square foot. A reflective roof can be installed or applied over almost any type of roof material, including directly on a plywood deck in place of asphalt. The performance of reflective roofing materials has been extensively documented. At a single family residence in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity of the roof from 18% to 79% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy use over the June to October period by 66% and the peak power by 17%. At a one-story school in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity of the roof from 8% to .68% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy use over the June to October period by 34% and peak power by 32%.65 In another Sacramento study, daily air conditioning savings of 17%, 26%, and 39% were documented in an office, museum, and hospice with high reflectivity roofs.56 63 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Standard 90.1-1999. 6. R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, 21" Ed., 2000, Division 5, Roofing. 65 H. Akbari, S. Bretz, D. Kurn, and J. Hanford, Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of High- Albedo Roofs, Energy and Buildings, v. 25,1997, pp. 117-126. 66 KW. Hildebrandt, W. Bos, and R. Moore, Assessing the Impacts of White Roofs on Building Energy Loads, ASHRAE Technical Data Bulletin, v_ 14, no. 2, 1998_ 181So003a . October 28, 2005 Page 56 At a one-story, 31,700-square foot Kaiser medical office building in Davis, increasing the reflectivity of an R-19 flat roof from 24% to 60% reduced summertime average weekday air conditioning by 18%. At another one-story, 23,800-square foot Kaiser medical office building in Gilroy, increasing the reflectivity of an R-7 flat roof from 25% to 65% reduced the summertime average weekday air conditioning by 13%. At a 33,000-square foot drug store in San Jose, increasing the reflectivity of a foil barrier flat roof from 18% to 28% reduced the summertime average daytime air condition by 2%.67 Reflective coatings reduced cooling energy costs by 12% to 18% in two other commercial buildings in California.68 The reflectivity of a conventional unsurfaced galvanized corrugated metal roof of seven retail stores in a strip mall in Florida was increased from 29% to 75% with a white coating. This reduced the summer space cooling energy use by 25%, with a range in savings of 13% to 48%, depending on the temperature maintained in the shops. Those maintaining the lowest interior temperatures saved the least on a percentage basis. The cost of the application was . $0.53/ftz with a payback period of about 9 years.69 In nine Florida homes, daily air conditioning energy use was reduced by 2% to 43% and peak demand was reduced by an average of 22%. The amount of energy savings was inversely correlated with the amount of ceiling insulation and duct system location, with the largest savings in poorly insulated homes and those with duct systems in the attic space and' smaller savings in well-insulated homes.7o A high-reflective coating on an office building in Mississippi reduced cooling energy demands by 22%.71 In addition to field studies, computer simulations of reflective roofs have documented cooling 67 H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and S. Konopacki, Measured Energy Savings of Light-Colored Roofs: Results from Three California Demonstration Sites, Proceedings of the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 3, no. 1, 1998. 68 S. Konopacki, H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and L. Rainer, Demonstration of Energy Savings of Cool Roofs, LBNL Report 40673, 1998. 69 D. Parker, J. Sonne, and J_ Sherwin, Demonstration of Cooling Savings of Light Colored Roof . Surfacing in Florida Commercial Buildings: Retail Strip Mall, Florida Solar Energy Center Report FSEC.CR-964-97, 1997; www.fsec.ucf.eduIBldg/pubsonline.htm. 70 D.S. Parker and others, Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Proceedings (Winter Meeting), Atlanta, GA, 1998; www.fsec.ucf.eduIBldg/pubsonline.htm. 71 C. Boutwell and Y. Salinas, Building for the Future - Phase I: An Energy Saving Materials , Research Project, Mississippi Power Co., Rohm and Haas Co and the University of Mississippi, 1986. 1818-oo3a . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 57 energy savings in residential and commercial buildings.72 Cool roofs have been widely used in California, including on the American Airline airport terminal in San Jose, on control towers at the Stockton and Palmdale airports, at the 300,000- square foot Honda distribution warehouse in Stockton, the 200,000-square foot JC Penny warehouse in Buena Park, and numerous buildings in Silicon Valley. Thus, this measure would save a substantial amount of money over the life of the Project and would cost no more than a standard roof. Further, it would reduce pollution by reducing the generation of power and the formation of ozone from the heat island effect. In sum, there are many additional feasible measures that should be evaluated and required for this Project. The focused Em should be revised to include these additional measures and be recirculated for public review. 2. The Focused EIR Does Not Provide Adequate Mitigation for Significant Traffic Impacts The City acknowledges that there will be significant traffic impacts associated with development of Phase I of the proposed project. (Focused Em, at p. 4-86) For example, the AM peak hour at Highway 79 SouthlRedhawk ParkwaylMargarita Road is a particular problem. Yet, the City takes no affirmative steps to mitigate this issue. Instead, the focused EIR states, "Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact" (Focused Em, at p. 4-86), but the City neglected to actually identify real measures to mitigate these traffic impacts. An adequate ErR requires the City to identify near-term mitigation measures for this intersection. Next, the focused Em points to four primary mitigation measures for project buildout. (Focused EIR, at pp. 4-93 and 4-94) For two of the four, mitigation will be achieved by paying fees to Riverside County for impacts at the 1-15 Interchange with Highway 79 South, or by paying the Project's fair share of the cost of the improvements at six other intersections. These are hollow and totally inadequate. 72 See, for example: H. Akbari, S. Konopacki, C. Eley, B. Wilcox, M. Van Geem and D. Parket, Calculations for Reflective Roofs in Support of Standard 90_1, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, no. 1, 1998, pp. 984-996; L. Gartland, S. Konopacki, and H. Akbari, Modeling the Effects of Reflective Roofmg, ACEEE 1996 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 4, 1996, pp. 117-124. 1818-003a . October 28, 2005 Page 58 For the other two mitigation measures, the Focused Em recommends that Temecula Regional Hospital construct the associated mitigation measures. All adequate traffic impact mitigation measures must be achieved through actual implementation of real mitigation measures, not payments or fees. Payment of fees to Riverside County or payment of the Project's fair share of improvements to the City does not guarantee that these mitigation measures will ever be implemented. Until improvements are actually in place, Project traffic impacts must be considered as "significant" rather than "less than significant." Finally, the focused Em must include a mitigation-monitoring program that clearly identifies financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring to achieve actual mitigation of these significant impacts. A full Em must include these measures. B. The Focused EIR Does Not Include All Feasible Mitigation Measures Before Concluding That The Impacts Are Unavoidable, Relying Instead Upon A Statement of Overriding Considerations . A lead agency may not conclude that an impact is significant and unavoidable without requiring the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. (CEQA Guidelines sections 15126.4, 15091.) When the agency is unable to provide a specific mitigation measure, CEQA requires the articulation of performance criteria at the time of project approval. (Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011,1028-1029.) With respect to the focused EIR, CEQA Guidelines specify that a lead agency must make a "fully informed and publicly disclosed" decision that "specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project." (CEQA Guidelines section 15043(b).) An agency must "state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record" and must include the statement of overriding considerations in the record of the project approval and refer to it in the notice of determination. (CEQA Guidelines sections 15093(b)(c).) A revised and recirculated Em must show that the City required all feasible mitigation measures and full articulation of performance criteria before issuing a statement of overriding considerations. . 1818-003. . . . October 28, 2005 Page 59 1. The City Failed to Provide Specific and Adequate Measures To Mitigate Significant Traffic Impacts The focused EIR fails to adequately discuss potentially significant impacts, and fails to develop mitigation measures associated with the following topics: First, the focused Em must analyze and evaluate impacts associated with construction including dirt and building material hauling, worker traffic, and worker parking for each of the three major phases. Measures must be developed . and incorporated into the focused Em to mitigate construction traffic impacts. These measures must maintain the City's LOS D standard as defined on Pages 4-69 and 4-70 of the focused EIR so construction traffic does not degrade the LOS below the significance threshold used in the focused Em. Second, according to the focused ErR, there has been communication between the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) and the City indicating that, ". ..future bus service is highly likely along SR 79 and that the busses will be stopping at the proposed hospital. The City has expressed previous support for the concept of a bus turnout and related amenities along SR 79 to be installed by' the project sponsors." Providing public transit to the Project presents significant mitigation to project impacts. Yet, the focused EIR simply fails to address the request for a bus turnout from RTA. Likewise, the focused EIR fails to quantify the demand for new transit services that the Project will create, and fails to provide any transit mitigation measures such as financial contributions to help establish new transit service along Highway 79 South. A full Em must include public transit as feasible mitigation to the Project impacts. Third, the City fails to fully and adequately address parking impacts. For example, the focused EIR states, "Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be . provided on surface lots." (Focused Em, at p. 1-4) As previously indicated, the focused Em characterizes the proposed parking as being significantly above the requirements of the City's Development Code. (Id. at p. 3-8) However, the document neglected to review and analyze the amount of parking being proposed on site. Instructive to this analysis is the publication Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This authority contains parking data for various land uses including hospitals and medical office buildings. For suburban hospitals like the Project, the average peak parking 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 60 demand is identified at 4.72 vehicles per bed. To satisfy this demand, at least 1,510 parking spaces would be needed for the 320 hospital beds in the proposed project. For medical offices, the average parking supply is identified as 3.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet. To meet this, at least 616 parking spaces would be needed for the 140,000 square feet of medical offices, the 10,000 square foot cancer center, and the 8,000 square foot fitness center in the proposed project. Based on the data published by ITE, at least 2,126 parking spaces are required to meet the needs of the Project, significantly higher than the 1,278 parking spaces being proposed. Clearly, parking proposed for the Project is inadequate. A full EIR must analyze actual parking needs for the Project. Finally, with respect to parking, the focused ErR fails to analyze impacts associated with providing all parking on site as surface parking. Given that the Project has an overall parking shortage of 850 spaces, and given that over 30 percent of the Project site will be occupied by surface parking, the City must consider building a parking structure to reduce environmental impacts in other areas and to avoid impacts to rock outcrops and trees on the site. . C. The Focused EIR Employs An Incorrect Baseline, Thereby Skewing The Impact Analysis The environmental setting establishes the baseline physical conditions against which a lead agency can determine whether an impact is significant. (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15125(a).) Under CEQA, an Em must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity ofthe project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, from both a local and regional perspective.73 (Id.) Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts. (Jrl. at ~ 15125(c).) The importance of having a stable, finite, fixed baseline for purposes of an environmental analysis was recognized decades ago in the case of County of Inyo u. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185. The recent case of County of Amador us. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App. 4th 931 provides a comprehensive exegesis concerning baseline water condition and held the Em must focus on impacts to the existing environment, not hypothetical situations. (Id.,76 Cal.AppAth at 954.) The presentation of baseline information must be sufficiently . 73 According to the DEIR, page 5, the Notice of Preparation for this Project was published in February 2002. 1818-003. . . . October 28, 2005 Page 61 detailed to make further analysis possible. (Id.) In short, it must provide not only raw data but also analysis. (Id., 76 Cal.AppAth at 955; See Enuironmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 355 (holding that an EIR should inventory and address the environment as it actually existed, not as it was proposed to be under the old General Plan).) "rr]he impacts of the project must be measured against the 'real conditions on the ground.'" (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey Board of Superuisors (2001) 87 CalAppAth 99,121.) While the absence of information in an Em does not per se constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion, "a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the Em process." (Berkeley Keep Jets Ouer the Bay Committee u. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355.) Here, the focused Em does not correctly describe the existing physical conditions related to traffic and geologic setting. 1. Inadequate Description of the Traffic Setting According to the focused EIR, "Existing peak hour manual intersection counts were conducted during the traditional weekday AM (7:00 - 9:00) and PM (4:00 - 6:00) peak hours on March 23, 2004. (Focused Em, at p. 4-72). Supplementary counts were obtained in July of 2005 for the traffic study Addendum." (Id. at p. 4-76) Also, "The current levels of service for study intersections and roadway segments were calculated based upon traffic counts and current intersection and roadway configurations." The focused Em indicates the peak hour traffic counts were made on March 23, 2004, for all intersections. Also, the City then made capacity calculations by using the traffic volumes from these March 2004 traffic counts. This approach ignores the significant traffic volume increases that have occurred with the rapid growth and development within and adjacent to the study area.. The values obtained were then used in the focused Em to represent baseline conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). Page 10 of the Addendum states "Existing Average Daily Traffic (AD'!') volumes and intersection counts were conducted by LLG in July 2005. In addition, traffic counts were also obtained from the Temecula Medical Center report. Appendix A contains the existing traffic volumes." This data indicates that peak 1818.003a . October 28, 2005 Page 62 hour traffic counts were made on July 7,2005 only for the intersection of Margarita Road and Dartolo Road, with the March 2004 traffic counts included for the other two intersections studied in the Addendum. The traffic counts on Thursday, July 7, 2005, were taken during the week with the July 4 Independence Day holiday. These traffic counts do not properly represent normal weekday conditions with the national holiday on Monday of that week, with summer vacations, and with schools closed for the summer months. In short, all of this data grossly underestimates true traffic capacity. Next, the City made capacity calculations by directly using the traffic volumes from the March 2004 traffic counts and the holiday week counts. This approach ignores the significant traffic volume increases that have occurred with the rapid growth and development in and adjacent to the study area, and provides unreliable data for the holiday week. The capacity calculation values in the focused Em do not represent baseline conditions at the time of the NOP. The NOP was released on August 3, 2005. (Focused Em, at p. 2-2) CEQA . requires evaluation of the existing conditions at the time of the NOP because timely information is essential to an accurate and complete impact analysis. Traffic counts made in March, 2004 at the eight intersections in the TIA do not represent baseline conditions in 2005. Traffic counts at Margarita Road and Dartolo Road taken during the summer week that included the Independence Day holiday are unreliable. New traffic counts must be made at all study intersections and all calculations and subsequent analysis must be redone to properly analyze traffic impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project. With one exception, existing traffic volumes counted at study intersections reflect traffic conditions, as they existed in 2004. (Focused Em, at p. 4-81) To account for traffic volumes from other development projects and to include continuing traffic volume increases year after year due to project construct phasing, existing volumes are expanded by an annual growth factor ranging from one to three percent annually. (Id.) To properJy evaluate buildout conditions, traffic studies must include an appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume projections from approved near term land development projects. The focused ErR states, "To assess opening year and buildout traffic conditions, two approaches were used. rn the November 2004 traffic study, a 4 percent growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative projects were added." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-81) The focused EIR's analysis is . 1818-003. . . . October 28, 2005 Page 63 flawed because the capacity calculations for project buildout failed to include a growth factor to the March 2004 traffic counts with one exception. (Appendix B) For the analysis of conditions in the AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was included to account for the traffic volume increases from small developments and annual traffic growth. This 4 percent growth factor does not appropriately expand the baseline traffic volumes to the buildout horizon year for the entire Project. In addition, the capacity calculation sheets for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz Road and for all ofthe other intersections do not include any growth factor in the analysis of buildout conditions for the Project. This flawed approach does not properly reflect annual traffic volume growth essential to an accurate buildout baseline for traffic volumes. The focused Em neglects to identify the expected timing of completion of each of the three major Project construction phases, as well as the buildout horizon for the entire Project. (Focused EIR, at pp. 3-7 and 3-8) Such an analysis provides no assurance that implementation of mitigation measures will be linked to significant traffic impacts caused by the phased development of the Project. The following two significant omissions in the focused EIR bear directly on the traffic analysis, causing it to be inaccurate and incomplete as follows: First, to account for traffic volumes from small development projects and to include continuing traffic volume increases year after year, existing volumes are expanded by an annual growth factor ranging from one to three percent annually. Second, to properly evaluate near term conditions, traffic studies must include an appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume projections from approved near term land development projects. Instead, according to the focused Em, "To assess opening year and buildout traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November 2004 traffic study, a 4 percent growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative projects were added." (Focused Em, at p. 4-81) However, near term capacity calculations in Appendix B indicate that a no growth factor was applied to the March 2004 traffic counts with one exception. For the analysis of near term conditions in the AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was included to account for annual traffic growth. But, the capacity calculation sheets for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz Road and for all of the other intersections do not include any growth factor in the analysis of near term conditions for Phase I of the Project. The focused Em's flawed approach does not properly reflect annual traffic volume growth. This information is required for 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 64 accurate near term baseline traffic volumes. A full ErR must be circulated containing this information. The focused Em failed to evaluate the Project traffic impacts at the conclusion of each Project phase. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine the point in time at which the multi-phased Project will cause the Level of Service (LOS) at impacted intersections to deteriorate to an unacceptable level. Project phasing assumptions in the traffic analysis must match project phasing in the focused EIR so mitigation measures can be implemented in a timely manner to maintain the City's LOS D standard. (Focused EIR, at pp. 4-69 and 4-70) A full Em must include annual growth of the 2004 traffic counts for both AM and PM peak hours at all intersections. The traffic analysis must also disclose significant traffic impacts and associated mitigation measures at the completion of each of the three major phases of the Temecula Regional Hospital. VII. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT ~D UNMITIGATED An Em must discuss significant "cumulative impacts." (CEQA Guidelines section 15130(a).) This requirement flows from CEQA section 21083, which requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if "the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. . . . 'Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." "Cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a).) "[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects." (CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a).) . "The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact ofthe project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (Communities for a Better Environment u. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 98, 117.) A legally adequate "cumulative impacts analysis" views a particular project over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 65 project at hand. "Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (CEQA Guidelines section 15355(b).) As the court recently stated in Communities for a Better Environment u. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 114 (2002): Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. (Citations omitted). In Kings County Farm Bureau u. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d at 718, the court concluded that an ErR inadequately considered an air pollution (ozone) cumulative impact. The court said: "The []EIR concludes the project's contributions to ozone levels in the area would be immeasurable and, therefore, insignificant because the [cogeneration] plant would emit relatively minor amounts of [ozone] precursors compared to the total volume of [ozone] precursors emitted in Kings County. The EIR's analysis uses the magnitude of the current ozone problem in the air basin in order to trivialize the project's impact." The court concluded: "The relevant question to be addressed in the Em is not the relative amount of precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin."74 The Kings County case was recently reaffirmed in CBE u. eRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 116, where the court rejected cases with a narrower construction of "cumulative 7< Los Angeles Unified u. City of Los Angeles, 58 Cal.App.4tbat 1024-1026.found an EIR inadequate for concluding that a project's additional increase in noise level of another 2.8 to 3.3 dBA was insignificant given that the existing noise level of 72 dBA already exceeded the regulatory recommended maximum of 70 dBA. The court concluded that this "ratio theory" trivialized the project's noise impact by focusing on individual inputs rather than their collective significance. The relevant issue was not the relative amount of traffic noise resulting from the project when compared to existing traffic noise, but whether any additional amount of traffic noise should be considered significant given the nature of the existing traffic noise problem. 1818..o03a . October 28, 2005 Page 66 impacts." (See also, Friends of Eel Riuer u. Sonoma County Water Agency, 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 869 (2003) (adopting Kings County approach for cumulative impacts analysis).) In Friends of Eel Ri,Jer u. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, the court held that the ErR for a project that would divert water from the Eel River had to consider the cumulative impacts of the project together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects_that also divert water from the same river system. The court held that the Em even had to disclose and analyze projects that were merely proposed, but not yet approved. The court stated, CEQA requires "the Agency to consider 'past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts. . . .' (Guidelines, 9 15130, subd. (b)(l)(A).) . The Agency must interpret this requirement in such a way as to 'afford the fullest possible protection of the environment.''' (Id. at 867, 869.) The court held that the failure ofthe EIR to analyze the impacts of the project together with other proposed projects rendered the document invalid. 'The absence of this analysis makes the EIR an inadequate informational document." (Id. at 872.) . The court in Citizens to Preserue the Ojai u. Ed. of Superuisors, 176 Cal.App.3d 421 (1985), held that an Em prepared to consider the expansion and modification of an oil refinery was inadequate because it failed to consider the cumulative air quality impacts of other oil refining and extraction activities combined with the project. The court held that the Em's use of an Air District Air Emissions rnventory did not constitute an adequate cumulative impacts analysis. The court ordered the agency to prepare a new EIR analyzing the combined impacts of the proposed refinery expansion together with the other oil extraction projects. A. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Assessment is Inaccurate and Inconsistent and Not In Accordance With CEQA The focused EIR's cumulative impact analysis is deficient and legally unsound for several reasons. First, there is no cumulative impacts analyses whatsoever for ten of the sixteen environmental factors listed in the NOP's CEQA Checklist. Given the comments above concerning leaking underground fuel tanks, seismic hazards, fouling water quality, and traffic problems, it defies credulity that the Project presents no cumulative impacts for these issues. 1818-003a . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 67 1. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For Hydrology and Water Quality is Inadequate The focused Em's cumulative impact analysis for hydrology and water quality merely discusses flooding and storm drainage in vague terms that do not actually require anything of the facility or other present or future projects: "Typical measures could include covering all outside storage facilities, vegetated swales, detention basins with filtration systems, and monitoring programs." (Focused EIR, at p. 6.2 (emphasis added).) In this regard, the focused EIR merely discusses measures which would normally address the flooding impact without actually requiring such measures or conducting an assessment of whether the measures reduce significant impacts. In other words, the DEIR contains no cumulative impact analysis at all for this issue. Worse, the cumulative impacts analysis for hydrology fails to address i,he cumulative impacts associated with water supply issues for the proposed Project and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the planning area. Significantly, with respect to hydrology and water quality, the City's cumulative impact analysis fails to mention the issues of cumulative phosphorus pollution and groundwater contamination. ,A full EIR must address the cumulative result of this Project and other area projects' affect on water quality issues in the project vicinity. 2. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For Land Use and Planning is Inadequate With respect to land use and planning, the focused EIR is impermissibly vague: 'The proposed project and cumulative growth will result in changes to existing land uses. Vacant properties will be developed pursuant to recently updated Temecula General Plan, leading to intensification of housing, commercial, and industrial development throughout southern Temecula." (Focused EIR, at p. 6.3.) Again, the DEm contains no cumulative impact analysis at all for this issue, and fails to identify other past present and future projects in the planning area. At a minimum, the City must identify and describe specific projects in the planning area in its cumulative impacts analysis. 1818-003. . October 28, 2005 Page 68 3. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For Traffic Is Inadequate The focused EIR fails to undertake the required evaluation of consistency with the City's General Plan policies related to cumulative traffic impacts. The cumulative traffic analysis fails to evaluate traffic conditions at buildout of the City's General Plan. Instead, the focused Em evaluates conditions at buildout using the faulty methodology discussed above. While the TIA includes trips from 17 nearby projects in its analysis of eight intersections, the analysis does not include trips associated with buildout of the City's entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the surrounding area. (See TIA, at p. 9) While Appendix B includes trips from 21 nearby projects in its analysis of five intersections, the . cumulative projects data does not include trips associated with buildout of the City's entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the focused Em fails to properly account for annual growth from small development projects out to the horizon year of the City's General Plan. . Accordingly, the focused Em must analyze traffic conditions at General Plan buildout without and with Temecula Regional Hospital Project traffic. Absent such . a cumulative analysis, the City's focused EIR is inaccurate and incomplete. B. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For Air Quality Is Inadequate The focused Em finds significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. The focused EIR evaluates impacts "based primarily on 21 related projects identified by the City of Temecula." For a description of 17 of these projects, the focused Em relies on a 2002 traffic impact analysis for another project, the Apis Plaza. Rather than providing a summary of these projects in the cumulative impacts analysis section, the focused ErR refers the reviewer to the traffic impact analysis contained in Appendix D for further information. Yet Appendix D does not contain any information beyond the name and proposed uses of these projects and their projected trip generation; it claims that the Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis is contained in its Appendix E, but the Initial Study failed to include this document. Further, the focused ErR claims that four additional projects were supplemented, yet it fails to supply any information on these projects. (Focused Em, p. 6-1 and Appx. D, p. 9.) The focused Em contains no information for any of these 21 projects. For example, there is no information on these project's time period over which they will be constructed, their expected buildout, or the air 1818-003. . . . . October 28, 2005 Page 69 quality impacts resulting from their construction or operation. In short, the information provided in the focused EIR is entirely inadequate to assess the cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from the Project. In sum, the cumulative impact analysis must include all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, including proposed projects. rnstead, the focused Em only discusses other projects in the abstract, not once identifying other applicable projects subject to an adequate cumulative impacts analysis. CEQA prohibits the City from viewing the Project in a vacuum. The City must prepare a full Em for the Project to fully analyze, disclose to the public and consider mitigation measures to address the important resources in the region. VIII. THE FOCUSED EIR MUST DISCLOSE ALL GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze the impacts of a project in reference to relevant planning documents, including the General Plan. (CEQA Guidelines, App. G, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Item 6.) An Em must discuss any inconsistencies that exist between a proposed project and any applicable general plans and regional plans. (CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d).) This discussion is mandatory under CEQA. The same analysis must be conducted when a lead agency elects to use a negative declaration to evaluate the significant environmental impacts that may be caused by a project. (CEQA Guidelines, App. G.) The purpose of this requirement is to determine - in the context of a general plan's policies, objectives and standards - whether a particular project will have a significant impact on the environment. A project's impacts may be significant if they are greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan. (Gentry u. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1416.) Here, there are a number of inconsistencies between the focused Em and the General Plan for the City of Temecula. Specifically, as explained by Dr. Pless in her attached comments, while the General Plan requires the Project's air quality impacts to be reduced to the greatest extent feasible, the focused Em does not include all feasible mitigation. Dr. Pless provides a list of feasible mitigation for air quality impacts that are not addressed in the focused ErR. Second, according to the General Plan, "public and institutional facilities should be clustered in activity centers to reinforce other uses and benefit from access to alternative modes of transportation." City of Temecula General Plan, LU- lS18-003a Oct;Qijer~8t.20,Q5 Pa~'ro .'22.Thi:S-I'tpjec<tJ~1U"()pqsedJ@r;a vacant piece.oflll'il,tlth:aM&'howBete M(!i'aIiy . Kliciti~fl\ycentatl!''il,9:t'~ it ()if~l'~ac@sstp.:altemativtl mod-esoftraillijjl?rta,tfuiL~' . ''The:ioeiiEfedElRFt1h:o~ldoo i'~Y.ise!l,to!UsCW!l!,~i}llloItl;l:stenoywithth'8' Genera;:i . !l:la,n~~nd.i'e1iwcljlktelltoi-jpi.1bh'c:;mi(fflttrtd~"i"lirilerit, . '.. . .Pi;Q~ae thil;l,~Et~mentJnits:~t(jJi.ysetting:'<llI3C\.Iilsi1!!il,~ ii"9i; 9-o:~site;gpli,tijI' '. .."t!~!i:~1~~~~~:;~7:t~::=~t:e~lf;t:.ip .... '~..' 'c.~uSr().N" . . . ..:-Tli~fQ~ed:EIR'fa;lFf;to ~a'tisfy GEQAl$ifundamental manda-oos..of i:1rl'Ormiilt(. . th@'ubiie,d d ei'~ n'ma"" . of the: tentiai1."sigJlific- tem":... ental5'-"a'0tS , p . an.. a ll.ton.",~... .JX?"..Y' "..M . ...,~.QDIIl ....,., .. ..I1J';aplitipoliedptoje'e't,aillfi'tli.PO$wg allfe~,sil:ilQ.~~es ~:plltiga&e:thuse ilnJ.m'(\t$;. . . ,to;l\'llls,-thin~l:iant, This iiP'l.lJ;!}:!ecially Uue. here)gi\re'.t:j.tb!'i'.gl'8:"e'h~lth.~d ~a~~;i$~!les:rm:$.~by the prQpo~:Ptoji;lct;'Che'fooused Em ~houliil'i~ re~'\I'~'~ . .WllSm,;a"d$s$frig:,tl:i~iq~c~il~~ de~i~l1ed.h~in'and in'theatt:adle.d . df)ltum,"en:ts,fu1c;1;~~tilf!;tedfiJl~ ~'bU~taVI~W.' .. Since~lr" (Jh.~6~ Gl1itiii: 1). S#"fh €m.......'s..<.'.... .a., -,k~ .A~~~t\ts . . . . . . October 26, 2005 Ms. Gloria D. Smith, Attorney at Law Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, California 94080-7037 SUBJECT: Review of Traffic Portions ofthe Temecula Regional Hospital Project Focused Environmental Impact Report in the City of Temecula Dear Ms. Smith: Tom Brohard, PE, has reviewed various documents associated with the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital in the City of Temecula. These documents include the September 26, 2005 Focused Environmental Impact Report (Focused Em) prepared by P&D Consultants as well as the November 4, 2004 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the September 22, 2005 Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (Addendum) prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers. My reviews of the Focused Em, TIA, and Addendum indicate that numerous transportation and circulation issues associated with the project have not been properly or adequately addressed. As detailed throughout this report, the following significant omissions, deficiencies and inadequacies were found: 1) Trip Generation Forecasts for the Proiect Are Significantlv Underestimated a) Project Will Provide Additional Parking Spaces On Site b) Low Trip Rate per Bed Was Used c) All Trips from Cancer Center and Fitness Center Were Omitted d) Additional Phase I Project Trips Will Create Significant Traffic Impacts e) Additional Buildout Project Trips Will Create Significant Traffic Impacts 2) Inappropriate Traffic Counts Used to Evaluate Existing- Conditions 3) Near Term and Buildout Baseline Analvsis rssues a) Near Term Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth b) Buildout Baseline Traffic Volumes Must rnclude Annual Growth 4) Cumulative Traffic Analvsis Is Erroneous Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments . October 26, 2005 . 5) Mitie:ation Measures Do Not Result in Less Than Sirnificant lmoacts 6) Numerous Omissions from the Focused' EIR a) Construction Impacts b) Transit Impacts c) Parking Impacts d) Site Plan Analysis In summary, the City has not conducted an appropriate traffic and circulation analysis of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project. Without further study to address the City's inadequate analysis of significant traffic impacts, it is not possible to conclude that the majority of the project's traffic impacts have a less than significant effect on the environment with mitigation. To rectify the numerous significant deficiencies and inadequacies, the issues in this report as well as those expressed by others must be carefully studied and addressed in a revised traffic impact analysis conducted as part of a thorough project reevaluation in a revised and recirculated Em. Education and Experience . Since receiving a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina in 1969, I have gained over 35 years of professional engineering experience, all of which has occurred in California. r am licensed as both a Professional Civil Engineer and as a Professional Traffic Engineer in California. I formed Tom Brohard and Associates in 2000 and now serve "on call" as Consulting Transportation Engineer for the City of San Fernando and as the Interim City Traffic Engineer for the City ofIndio. I have extensive experience in traffic engineering and transportation planning. During my career in both the public and private sectors, I served as City Traffic Engineer for the Cities of Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Huntington Beach, Indio, Lawndale, Los Alamitos, Oceanside, Paramount, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, San Fernando, San Marcos, Santa Ana, and Westlake Village. While serving these communities, I personally conducted hundreds of investigations of citizen requests for the installation of various traffic control devices. During these assignments, r successfully presented hundreds of traffic engineering reports at City Council and Traffic Commission meetings. During my career, I have reviewed numerous environmental documents and . traffic studies for various projects. Several recent assignments are . 2 . . . Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 highlighted in the enclosed resume. During these assignments, I worked successfully with several law firms and local interest groups in the review of environmental documents and traffic studies, frequently within very limited time constraints. BriefSummarv of the Proiect According to Page 3-4 of the Focused Em, "The proposed 566,160 square foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of: .:. An approximately 408,160 square foot, 2-tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds... .:. Two medical office buildings, one 4 stories173 feet high and the second 3 stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. .:. A 10,000 square foot cancer center housed in a one story building. .:. An 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one story building." Regarding the project phasing, Pages 3-7 and 3-8 ofthe Focused Em state: "Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a' 3 story, 60,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction of adequate surface parking to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6 story tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate 320 bed configuration with the addition of the 5 story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase III will add a 4 story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #1) and the hospital connector. 3 Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 . Phase IV consists of construction of a one story, 10,000 square foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. Phase V will be construction of the 8,000 square foot fitness center and the jogging trail. Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated to occur concurrently and to last approximately 12 months." From the above description of the project phasing in the focused EIR, construction of the proposed project will take 36 months. rt is likely that a number of months or perhaps years will pass between construction activities associated with each of the three major construction phases: As discussed throughout this report, the focused Em, TIA, and Addendum do not properly evaluate baseline conditions in concert with the phasing of construction for the proposed project. The failure of the focused EIR to analyze traffic impacts associated with the major construction phases as well as buildout of the entire project provides no assurance that implementation of mitigation measures will be linked to significant traffic impacts caused by the phased development of the Temecula Regional Hospital. . Traffic Related Issues Section 4.6 of the focused Em provides a summary of the environmental setting, project analysis, traffic impacts and mitigation measures for the project prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers. Based on the information in the Focused Em, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and Addendum, my review indicates the following omissions, deficiencies, and inadequacies in the traffic analysis for the proposed project: 1) Trin Generation Forecasts for the Proiect Are Sirnificantlv Underestimated - The TIA and Addendum summarized in the Focused Em contain several significant errors in the calculation of AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily trips that will be generated by the proposed project. Use of average trip rates per hospital bed together with the omission of all trips associated with the 10,000 square foot cancer center, and the 8,000 square foot fitness center, significantly understates the project trip generation and the resulting traffic impacts. As such, major revisions to the Focused Em are required to address the significant impacts that the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will have on traffic. The Focused Em must use the higher trip forecasts discussed in the following comments to properly identify the project traffic impacts and . 4 . Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 develop appropriate mitigation measures. As detailed below, trips forecast in the Focused EIR are significantly below those that should have been calculated for the proposed project as follows: . a) Proiect Will Provide Additional Parkin!! Spaces On Site - According to Page 3-8 of the Focused Em, "...the total parking spaces provided will be 1,278 which exceeds the City's parking standards which requires 663 parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for which the Development Code requires one space per 3 beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained in the Development Code because the Code requirements do not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common in most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason." Footnote 2 on Page 3- 8 of the Focused Em attributes the above comments to a personal communication on September 22, 2005 with Mr. David Prusha, HKS, rnc., the architects and engineers for the proposed project. Providing nearly double the amount of parking spaces on site over what is required in the City's Development Code is a strong indication that the proposed project will generate more than the average number of vehicle trips, particularly since the site is not currently served by bus or other transit. The unrealistically low trip rates used in the Focused Em, TIA, and Addendum do not provide a proper basis for analysis of reasonably foreseeable conditions associated with providing nearly double the parking spaces required by the City's Development Code, and the low trip rates certainly do not provide an evaluation of the "worst case" condition. b) Low Trip Rate Per Bed Was Used- The Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum used the trip rate of 20 daily trips per bed published by SANDAG, the San Diego Association of Governments, in developing forecasts of daily, AM, and PM peak hour trips. For the initial phase with 170 beds, 3,400 daily trips including 272 trips in the AM peak hour and 340 trips in the PM p~ak hour were forecast. For the buildout of 320 beds, 6,400 daily trips including 512 trips in the AM peak hour and 640 trips in the PM peak hour were forecast. These unreasonably low trip generation forecasts for the 170 bed hospital and the 320 bed hospital developed in the TlA and Addendum were the used throughout the Focused Em for the proposed project. . In addition to trip rates per bed, SANDAG has also published rates of 25 daily trips per 1,000 square feet for hospitals, with 8 percent of the 5 Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 . daily trips in the AM peak hour and 10 percent of the daily trips in the PM peak hour. Applying the SANDAG trip rate per 1,000 square feet indicates the initial phase of the hospital building with 285,405 square feet will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. For the buildout of 408,160 square feet, the hospital portion of the proposed project will generate 10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020 trips in the PM peak hour. With the additional parking provided on site and the absence of transit service, the SANDAG trip rates per 1,000 square feet for the hospital portion of the project must be used to analyze and mitigate project traffic impacts. c) All Trips from Cancer Center and Fitness Center Were Omitted - Page 3-4. of the Focused Em indicates the proposed project will include a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness center as components of the Temecula Regional Hospital. Table 4-22 on Page 4-87 of the Focused EIR for the trip generation for buildout of the proposed project only forecasts trips for a hospital containing 320 beds and 140,000 square feet of medical offices. From the description of the project on Page 3-4 of the Focused EIR, all trips associated with the cancer center and the fitness center have been omitted from the traffic analysis. . Using SANDAG data per 1,000 square feet indicates the 10,000 square foot cancer center will generate 250 daily trips including 20 trips in the AM peak hour and 25 trips in the PM peak hour. Using SANDAG data per 1,000 square feet indicates the 8,000 square foot fitness center will generate 200 daily trips including 16 trips in the AM peak hour and 20 trips in the PM peak hour. The additional 450 daily trips including 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 45 trips in the PM peak hour from these two project components must be added to the project trip generation forecasts, distributed to area roadway links and intersections, analyzed, and the resulting significant traffic impacts mitigated as necessary. d) Additional Phase I Proiect Trips Will Create Si!!nificant Traffic Impacts - Table 4-21 on Page 4-81 of the FocusedEIR incorrectly forecasts 3,400 daily trips with 272 trips in the AM peak hour and 340 trips in the PM peak hour for the 170 beds in the hospital in Phase I of the proposed project. Analyzing the hospital component properly as discussed above indicates the 285,405 square feet in Phase I will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. The 3,740 additional daily trips . 6 . Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 including 298 additional AM peak hour trips and 370 additional PM peak hour trips that will be generated by Phase I will significantly impact additional intersections and segments over and above those identified in the Focused Em. Each of these significant traffic impacts for Phase I of the proposed project must be identified and mitigated as necessary to maintain the City's Level of Service (LOS) D standard. . e) Additional Buildout Proiect Trips Will Create Sig-nificant Traffic Impacts - Table 4-22 on Page 4-87 of the Focused Em incorrectly forecasts 6,400 daily trips with 512 trips in the AM peak hour and 640' trips in the PM peak hour for 320 beds in the hospital at buildout of the proposed project. Analyzing the hospital component properly as discussed above indicates the 408,160 square feet at buildout will generate 10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020 trips in the PM peak hour. Furthermore, 450 daily trips including 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 45 trips in the PM peak hour will be generated by the 10,000 square foot cancer center and the 8,000 square foot fitness center. The 4,250 additional daily trips including 344 additional AM peak hour trips and 425 additional PM peak hour trips that will be generated by the project will significantly impact additional intersections and segments over and above those identified in the Focused Em. Each of these significant traffic impacts for buildout of the proposed project must be identified and mitigated as necessary to maintain the City's LOS D standard. 2) Inappropriate Traffic Counts Used to Evaluate Existing- Conditions - Page 4-72 of the Focused Em states "Existing peak hour manual intersection counts were conducted during the traditional weekday AM (7:00 -9:00) and PM (4:00 - 6:00) peak hours on March 23, 2004. Supplementary counts were obtain,~d in July of 2005 for the traffic study Addendum." Page 4-76 of the Focused Em states "The current levels of service for study intersections and roadway segments were calculated based upon traffic counts and current intersection and roadway configurations." . Our review of the traffic count sheets in Appendix A of the TIA indicates the peak hour traffic counts were made on March 23, 2004 for all 'intersections included in the TIA. Capacity calculations in Appendix B were then made by using the traffic volumes from these March 2004 traffic counts. This approach ignores the significant traffic volume increases that have occurred with the rapid growth and development within and adjacent to the study area. The values obtained were then used in the Focused Em to represent baseline conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Focused EIR. 7 Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 . Page 10 of the Addendum states "Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and intersection counts were conducted by LLG in July 2005. In addition, traffic counts were also obtained from the Temecula Medical Center report. Appendix A contains the existing traffic volumes." Our review of the traffic count sheets in Appendix A of the Addendum indicates peak hour traffic counts were made on July 7, 2005 only for the intersection of Margarita Road and Dartolo Road, with the March 2004 traffic counts included for the other two intersections studied in the Addendum. The traffic counts on Thursday, July 7, 2005 were taken during the week with the July 4 Independence Day holiday. These traffic counts do not properly represent normal weekday conditions with the national holiday on Monday of that week, with summer vacations, and with schools closed for the summer months. Capacity calculations in Appendix C of the Addendum were then made by directly using the traffic volumes from the March 2004 traffic counts and the holiday week counts. This approach ignores the significant traffic volume increases that have occurred with the rapid growth and development in and adjacent to the study area, and provides unreliable data for the holiday week. The capacity calculation values in the Focused Em do not represent baseline conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Focused Em. . Page 2-2 of the Focused EIR indicates the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released on August 3, 2005. It is my understanding that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of the existing conditions at the time of the NOP. The evaiuation of existing conditions at the time of the NOP is essential to an accurate and complete impact analysis. Traffic counts made in March 2004 at the eight intersections in the TIA do not represent baseline conditions in 2005. Traffic counts at Margarita Road' and Dartolo Road taken during the summer week that included the Independence Day holiday are unreliable. New traffic counts must be made at all study intersections and all calculations and subsequent analysis must be redone to properly analyze traffic impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project. 3) Near Term and Buildout Baseline Analvsis rssues - Pages 3-7 and 3-8 of the Focused EIR provide information regarding the length of construction of the three phases of the Temecula Regional Hospital. However, the failure of the Focused Em to identify the expected timing of completion of each of these major project phases as well as the buildout horizon for the entire project provides no assurance that implementation of mitigation . 8 . Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 measures will be linked to significant 'traffic impacts caused by the phased development of the project. The following two significant omissions in the Focused EIR bear directly on the traffic analysis, causing it to be inaccurate and incomplete as follows: a) Near Term Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth _ ,With one exception, existing traffic volumes counted at study intersections reflect conditions in 2004. According to the Focused Em, development of the proposed project will occur in three major phases over a number of years. To account for traffic volumes from small development projects and to include continuing traffic volume increases year after year, existing volumes are expanded by an annual growth factor ranging from one to three percent annually. To properly evaluate near term conditions, traffic studies must include an appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume projections from approved near term land developinent projects. . Page 4-81 of the Focused Em states "To assess opening year and buildout traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November 2004 traffic study, a 4 percent growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative projects were added." In our review of the near term capacity calculations in Appendix B of the TIA, we found no growth factor was applied to the March 2004 traffic counts with one exception. For the analysis of near term conditions in the AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was included to account for annual traffic growth. However, the capacity calculation sheets for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz Road and for all of the other intersections do not include any growth factor in the analysis of near term conditions for Phase I of the project. The flawed approach used in the TIA and included in the Focused EIR does not properly reflect annual traffic volume growth that must, be included in the near term baseline traffic volumes. . b) Buildout Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth - With one exception, existing traffic volumes counted at study intersections reflect conditions in 2004. According to the Focused EIR, development of the proposed project will occur in three major phases over a number of years. To account for traffic volumes from small development projects and to include continuing traffic volume increases year after year, existing volumes are expanded by an annual growth factor ranging from one to three percent annually. To properly evaluate buildout conditions, traffic studies must include an 9 Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 . appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume projections from approved near term land development projects. Page 4-81 of the Focused E.m states ''To assess opening year and buildout traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November 2004 traffic study, a 4 percent growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative projects were added." In our review of the capacity calculations for project buildout in Appendix B of the TIA, we found no growth factor was applied to the March 2004 traffic counts with one exception. For the analysis of conditions in the AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was included to account for the traffic volume increases from small developments and annual traffic growth. This 4 percent growth factor does not appropriately expand the baseline traffic volumes to the buildout horizon year for the entire project. rnaddition, the capacity calculation sheets for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz Road and for all of the other intersections do not include any growth factor in the analysis of buildout conditions for the project. The flawed approach used in the TIA and included in the Focused EIR does not properly reflect annual traffic volume growth that must be included in the buildout baseline traffic volumes. . Without evaluating the project traffic impacts at the conclusion of each project phase, it is impossible to determine the point in. time at which the multi phased project will cause the Level of Service (LOS) at impacted intersections to deteriorate to an unacceptable level. Project phasing assumptions in the traffic analysis must match project phasing in the Focused Em so mitigation measures can be implemented in a timely manner to maintain the City's LOS D standard as defined on Pages 4-69 and 4-70 of the Focused EIR. The Focused Em must include annual growth of the 2004 traffic counts for both AM and PM peak hours at all intersections. The traffic analysis must also disclose significant traffic impacts and associated mitigation measures at the completion of each of the three major phases of the Temecula Regional Hospital. 4) Cumulative Traffic Analvsis Is Erroneous - The cumulative traffic analysis in the Focused Em fails to evaluate traffic conditions at buildout of the City's General Plan. Instead, the Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum evaluate conditions at buildout of the proposed project using the faulty methodology discussed above. While the TIA includes trips from 17 nearby projects in its analysis of eight intersections, the listing beginning on Page 9 of theTIA does not include trips associated with buildout of the City's entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the surrounding . 10 . Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 area. While the Addendum includes trips from 21 nearby projects in its analysis of five intersections, the cumulative projects data in Appendix B of the Addendum does not include trips associated with buildout of the City's entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the TIA and the Addendum fail to properly account for annual growth from small development projects out to the horizon year of the City's General Plan. The Focused EIR must analyze traffic conditions at General Plan buildout without and with Temecula Regional Hospital project traffic. 5) Mitil!ation Measures Do Not Result in Less Than Sil!Iiificant Impacts _ Page 4-86 of the Focused Em indicates there will be significant traffic impacts associated with development of Phase r of the proposed project in the AM peak hour at Highway 79 SouthlRedhawk ParkwaylMargarita Road. While Page 4-86 states ''Mitigation measures are.required to reduce the level of impact", no measures are identified to mitigate these traffic impacts. Near term mitigation measures for this intersection must be identified. e Pages 4-93 and 4-94 of the Focused Em list four primary mitigation measures for buildout of the proposed project. For two of the mitigation mea$ures, the Focused Em indicates mitigation will. be achieved by . paying fees to Riverside County for impacts at the 1-15 Interchange with Highway 79 South or by paying the project's fair share of the cost of the improvements at six other intersections. For the other two mitigation measures, the Focused EIR recommends that Temecula Regional Hospital construct the associated mitigation measures. Mitigation of project traffic impacts can only be achieved through actual construction of mitigation measures. Payment of fees to Riverside County or payment of the project's fair share of improvements to the City does not guarantee that these mitigation' measures will be built. Until improvements are actually in place, the traffic impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital must be considered as "significant" rather than ''less than significant". The Focused EIR must include a mitigation monitoring program that clearly identifies financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. . 6) Numerous Omissions from the Focused Em - The Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project fails to analyze potentially significant impacts or to develop mitigation measures associated with the following topics: 11 Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 . a) Construction Imnacts - The Focused Em must analyze and evaluate impacts associated with construction including dirt and building material hauling, worker traffic, and worker parking for each of the three major phases. Measures must be developed and incorporated into the Focused Em to mitigate construction traffic impacts. These measures must maintain the City's LOS D standard as defined on Pages 4-69 and 4-70 of the Focused Em so construction traffic does not degrade the LOS below the significance threshold used in the Focused Em. b) Transit Imnacts - Correspondence in response to the NOP dated August 18, 2005 from Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) in Appendix A of the Focused Em indicates "...future bus service is highly likely along SR 79 and that the busses will be stopping at the proposed hospital. The City of Temecula has expressed previous support for the concept of a bus turnout and related amenities along SR 79 to be installed by the project sponsors." The Focused EIR fails to address the request for a bus turnout from RTA. The Focused Em also fails to quantify the demand for new transit services that the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will create and to provide any transit mitigation measures such as financial contributions to help establish new transit service along Highway 79 South. . c) Parking Imnacts - Page 1-4 of the Focused Em states "Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots." As previously indicated, Page 3-8 of the Focused EIR characterizes the proposed parking as being significantly above the requirements of the City's Development Code. However, the Focused ErR fails to review and analyze the amount of parking being proposed on site. Parkin~ Generation. 3n! Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) contains parking data for various land uses including hospitals and medical office buildings. For suburban hospitals, the average peak parking demand is identified at 4.72 vehicles per bed. To satisfy this demand, at least 1,510 parking spaces would be needed for the 320 hospital beds in the proposed project. For medical offices, the average parking supply is identified as 3.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet. To meet this, at least 616 parking spaces would be needed for the 140,000 square feet of medical offices, the 10,000 square foot cancer center, and the 8,000 square foot fitness center in the proposed project. Based on the data published by ITE, at least . 12 . . . Ms. Gloria D. Smith Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments October 26, 2005 2,126 parking spaces are required to meet the needs of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project, significantly higher than the 1,278 parking spaces being proposed. The Focused Em also fails to analyze impacts associated with providing all parking on site as surface parking. With the project having an overall shortage of 850 parking spaces and with over 30 percent of the project site occupied by surface parking, cOIisideration must be given to construction of a parking structu.re to reduce environmental impacts in other areas and to avoid impacts to rock outcrops and trees on the site. d) Site Plan Analvsis - The Focused Em fails to analyze the proposed site plan shown in Figure 3-2 on Page 3-5 of the Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital. Important traffic considerations that must be addressed by the Focused' ErR include topics such as the length of driveway throats to adequately accommodate vehicle queuing and stacking, sight distance at external and internal intersections, on site vehicle circulation, patient and visitor drop off and pick up areas, pedestrian facilities, truck loading areas, and accessibility of parking spaces. Without these additional analyses, the Focused Em fails to address all reasonably foreseeable adverse construction, transit, parking, and traffic impacts of the proposed project. In sum, there are numerous transportation and circulation issues, omissions, and inadequacies associated with the September 26, 2005 Focused Em for Temecula Regional Hospital Project. The items outlined in this letter must be carefully studied and evaluated before reaching the conclusion that most of the project traffic impacts can be reduced to insignificance with mitigation. The Focused Em, TIA, and Addendum must be revised to respond to our significant comments as part of the environmental process and recirculated 13 'Mli;OloFia D; Smith jf!mecura,~gi9rlaJ ~spitlllFOeused EIRTra~l(fCojlll)'t~nt$' . O~iober 26' 200S ' ...._ ,. . -:.' .-..' .-J C._.'-' . for, public ,revi~w i\nd comment. ,If YQl1 haV'~<w-~on~ te~lfthe~ eom~ts.pl,@all.eca:ll.ri1e a,typwr COI;Wemence. Re<maetfb:ily submitted . '. ....]:':"'" . - ,'. ., -. - , , 'l'(jJ1j B1r9hard aIl4 A$SQ:ciate.s . -. - - ~ -- .-. - -- . '~ ':~'~' ,0'" ,~: , "~' .. -. . . - ',' ., . - . . .: . .' . . .. , 'L'~1iro~ard; ,PE ' Pti'lll' '-'1' ""','~ci.t E.xl:C1osw-e ' e .. ''14 . . . Licenses: Tom Brohard, PE Education: Experience: Memberships: Expertise: 1976 / Professional Engineer / California - Civil, No. 24577 1977 / Professional Engineer / California - Traffic, No. 724 BS I Civil Engineering / Duke University /1969 35 Years Institute of Transportation Engineers - Mernber Orange County Traffic Engineers Council - Chair 1979-1980 American Public Works Association - Member Tom is a recognized expert in the field of traffic engineering and transportation planning. His background also includes responsibility for leading and managing the delivery of various contract services to numerous cities in Southern Califomia. Since forming Tom Brohard and Associates in 2000, Tom has reviewed many traffic impact reports and environmental documents for various projects across the state. Tom has extensive experience in providing transportation planning and traffic engineering services across Southern California. From 1972 through 1978, he conducted all traffic engineering investigations in the Second Supervisorial District in Los Angeles County. He has served as City Traffic EngineerfTransportation Manager/Engineer as follows: o Bellflower............,........................ 1997 - 1998 o Bell Gardens................................ 1982 - 1995 o Huntington Beach ........................ 1998 - 2004 o Indio....................................... 2005 - present o Lawndale..................................... 1973 -1978 o Los Alamitos................................ 1981 - 1982 o Oceanside ................................... 1981 -1982 o Paramount................................... 1982 - 1988 o Rancho Palos Verdes.................. 1973 - 1978 o Rolling Hills.................................. 1973 - 1978, 1985 - 1993 o Rolling Hills Estates..................... 1973 - 1978, 1984 - 1991 o San Fernando.......................... 2003 - present o San Marcos ................................. 1981 o Santa Ana.................................... 1978 - 1981 o Westlake Village.......................... 1983 - 1994 While serving Huritington Beach, Tom oversaw a staff of 20 including traffic engineers and transportation planners, traffic signal and street lighting personnel, and the signing, striping, and marking crews. He secured $3.5 million in grant funding, manageo the initial West Orange County Rail Feasibility Study, and recently oversaw the consultant selection for the City's Traffic Model and Circulation Element Update. Tom Brohard and Associates Tom Brohard, PE, Page 2 Selected significant accomplishments during the last four years include the following: . .:. Conducted Traffic Impact Analyses for the Sacred Heart Church and School Master Plan in the City of Pl'llm Desert including presentations to community residents and testimony at Public Hearings before the City Council (3/2005 to 7/2005) .:. Prepared preliminary critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study for the Prewett Ranch Project in the City of Brentwood for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (7/2005) .:. Prepared critique of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Traffic Impact Analysis for the Providence Center Specific Plan in the City of Fullerton for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (6/2005 to 7/2005) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic and circulation sections of the Draft Subsequent EIR of the County of Ventura Focused General Plan Update and prepared rebuttal to responses for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger and the Community of Somis (12/2004 to 1/2005; 6/2005) .:. Prepared response to Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for 483 condominiums proposed in three high rise towers in Century City in the City of Los Angeles for Tract No. 7260 Association (6/2005) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic and parking impacts identified in the Draft EIR and . Traffic Impact Analysis for the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center Expansion in the City of Long Beach for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (2/2005 to 5/2005) .:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study for the Villages at Fairfield Project in the City of Fairfield for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (4/2005 to 5/2005) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic, circulation, and parking impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for Los Angeles Unified School District Valley High School #5 in the City of San Fernando (4/2005) .:. Prepared critique of the transportation, circulation, and parking impacts identified in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR for the Wood Street Project in the City of Oakland for the East Bay Community Law Center (3/2005) .:. Conducted City wide engineering and traffic surveys confirming enforceable speed limits on 31 street segments for the City of San Fernando (1/2005 to 3/2005) .:. Prepared critiques of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and in the Revised Draft EIR for the Central Larkspur Specific Plan in the City of Larkspur and prepared responses to comments in the Final EIR for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (7/2002 to 8/2002, 12/2003 to 2/2004, and 1/2005 to 3/2005) . Tom Brohard and Associates . . . Tom Brohard, PE, Page 3 .:. Checked plans for traffic signal installations and modifications as well as signing and striping revisions for various projects for Engineering Resources of Southern California and the Cities of Hemet and Palm Springs (12/2003 to 3/2005) .:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study and traffic study prepared for the Hidden Canyon (Greenfield) Quarry Use Permit and Reclamation Plan in Monterey County fqr Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (2/2005) .:. Prepared critiques of the traffic impacts identified in the Los Angeles International Airport Master Plan Draft EIS/EIR for Alternatives A, B, and C and in the Supplement Draft EIS/EIR for Alternative D, prepared responses to comments in the Final EIS/EIR, and reviewed Addendum #3 for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger and the City of EI Segundo (2/2001 to 7/2001,7/2003 to 10/2003,11/2004, and 12/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Traffic Study for the 450-460 North Palm Drive Senior Housing Residential Project in the City of Beverly Hills for Luna & Glushon (11/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study and provided testimony at a public hearing regarding the West Los Angeles College Facilities Master Plan in Los Angeles County for Culver Crest Neighborhood Association (10/2004 to 12/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact analysis as well as subsequent rebuttal to responses to these comments in the Final EIR for The Ranch Plan in the County of Orange for the Endangered Habitats League (6/2004 to 7/2004 and 10/2004) .:. Prepared preliminary critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study for the Chandler Ranch Specific Plan Project in the City of Paso Robles for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and traffic report associated with the Magnolia Park Project in the City of Oakley for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR and traffic study for the McKean Road Sports Complex in Santa Clara County for Shute, . Mihaly, & Weinberger (9/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Environmental Assessment for Robie Ranch Reclamation Project in Calaveras County for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (9/2004) .:. Provided expert assistance to residerits in the City of La Mirada during settlement negotiations regarding litigation involving the Big T Residential Development Project in the City of Buena Park (6/2004 to 9/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR and the associated traffic study for the Lake Jennings Ralph's Shopping Center in San Diego County for SOFAR and Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (8/2004) Tom Brohard and Associates Tom Brohard, PE, Page 4 . .:. Reviewed Traffic Impact Study prepared for the San Fernando Corridors Specific Plan for the City of San Fernando (7/2004 to 8/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Negative Declaration for the Brisbane Recycling Project in the City of Brisbane for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (6/2004) .:. Reviewed various alternative alignments for the extension of Lexington Drive from Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue, a proposed secondary highway, for the City of Los A1amitos; provided expert assistance to the City of Los Alamitos during settlement negotiations regarding litigation of the proposed Cottonwood Christian Center Project in the City of Cypress (4/2004 to 6/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact study for the Jaxon Enterprises Mine and Reclamation Expansion Project in the County of Merced for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (5/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Environmental Secondary Study for the Santa Fe Parcel 6 Mixed Use Project in the City of San Diego for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (4/2004 to 5/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact analysis for the for the San Mateo Rail Corridor Plan & Bay Meadows Specific Plan Amendment in the City of San Mateo for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (3/2004 to 5/2004) . .:. Reviewed the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan Traffic Analysis for the proposed redevelopment and intensification of adjacent land uses for the City of Huntington Beach (12/2003, 4/2004, and 5/2004) .:. Conducted the Traffic Impact Study of the San Fernando Regional Pool Facility Project and the associated street improvements for the City of San Fernando . (3/2004 to 4/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated traffic study for the Pixar Headquarters Expansion in the City of Emeryville for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (3/2004 to 4/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the. Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact analysis for the Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan in the City of Vacaville for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (3/2004 to 4/2004) .:. Conducted the Traffic Study of Two Parking Alternatives for the City of San Dimas to provide on street parking to complement potential retail/residential development on the east side of San Dimas Avenue north of Arrow Highway (12/2003 to 4/2004) .:. Prepared trip generation calculations for various retail and "Big Box' stores in conjunction with a March 2004 ballot measure in Contra Costa County for Mark R. . Wolfe & Associates (1/2004 to 2/2004). Tom Brohard and Associates . . . Tom Brohard, PE, Page 5 .:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated transportation impact analysis for the S&S Farms and Hancock Property Residential Development Plan in the City of Brentwood for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (2/2004) .:. Prepared critiques of the traffic impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative Declarations as well as subsequent rebuttal to responses to these comments for the Bayfront Live Work Project in the City of Hercules for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (4/2003,10/2003, and 2/2004) .:. Conducted the City Wide Traffic Calming Study of Residential Streets in the City of San Femando including development of traffic calming guidelines and specific recommendations addressing over. 70 "Hot Spots" throughout the City including monthly presentations at Transportation & Safety Commission meetings and a presentation of the Final Report to the City Council (5/2003 to 1/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated transportation analysis for the Cottonwood Christian Center in the City of Cypress for the City of Los A1amitos (112004) .:. Prepared critique of the Recirculated Draft EIR and the associated transportation analysis for the Sand Creek Specific Plan in the City of Antioch for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (1/2004) .:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study and the associated traffic impact studies for the West Dublin Transit Village in the City of Dublin for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (11/2003 to 1/2004) .:. Prepared critiques of the Initial Study and the Recirculated Initial Study/General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the Jack Parker Trucking Site in the City of San Pablo for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2003 and 11/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and rebuttal to responses to comments in the Final EIR for the proposed Wal-Mart in the City of Fremont for Mark R. Wolfe & Associates (7/2002 to 10/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR, rebuttal to responses in the Final EIR, and testimony at a public hearing regarding the Alpine Village Shopping Center in San Diego County for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (6/2002 to 10/2003) . .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR, rebuttal to responses in the Final EIR, testimony at public hearings, and assistance during settlement negotiations regarding the 2000 Avenue of the Stars Project in Century City in the City of Los Angeles for Tract No. 7260 Association (9/2002 to 10/2003) Tom Brohard and Associates Tom Brohard, PE, Page 6 .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Glen Lorna . Ranch Project in the City of Gilroy for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Initial Study and the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Ryder Homes Project 'in the City of Oakley for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Initial Study and the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Ravenswood Residential Project in Contra Costa County for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2003 to 912003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR for the proposed Boronda Crossing Commercial Project in the City of Salinas for Mark R. Wolfe & Associates (8/2002 to 912003) .:. Prepared four grant applications to Caltrans for $1,115,000 of Hazard Elimination Safety funding to modify traffic signals and to upgrade regulatory, warning, and street name signs in the City of Santa Ana (3/2003 to 812003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bluerock Business Center Project in the City of Antioch for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Clark Road . Residential ProjeCt in the City of Richmond for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Initial Study and the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Sky Ranch Residential Project in the City of Antioch for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (7/2003 to 812003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Cal Poly Student Housing North Project in the City of San Luis Obispo for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (7/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Final EIR for the Lake Jennings Ralph's Shopping Center in San Diego County for SOFAR and Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (3/2003 to 7/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Cypress Grove Residential Project in the City of Oakley for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (6/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the McKean Road Sports Complex in Santa Clara County for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (5/2003) . Tom Brohard and Associates . . . Tom Brohard, PE, Page 7 .:. Prepared grant application to Caltrans for $448,000 of Safe Route to School funding to upgrade all school signs at 68 public and private schools in the City of Santa Ana (3/2003 to 5/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Blossom Valley Middle School for the Dunbar Lane Task Force in San Diego County (4/2003 to 5/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft ErR and the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bettencourt Ranch Aggregate Mining Project in Merced County for Weinberg. Roger & Rosenfeld (4/2003) .:. Conducted a' complete review of the General Plan Circulation Element for the City of Huntington Beach including comparisons to the Orange County Transportation Authority's Master Plan of Arterial Streets and drafted a Request for Proposal to update the City's Circulation Element (8/2002 to 4/2003) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Wal-Mart in the City of Gilroy for Mark R. Wolfe & Associates (2/2003 to 3/2003) . .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Waterfront/Downtown Mixed Use Project in the City of Vallejo for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (2/2003) .:. Provided expert witness evaluation of the traffic impacts caused by simultaneous construction of various Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority projects for Sullivan, Workman, & Dee (12/2002 to 2/2003) .:. Conducted 12 training sessions in Urban Street Design Fundamentals for the Engineering Department staff in the City of Torrance (4/2001 to 4/2002 and 10/2002 to 12/2002) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Transportation Impact Study for the Westem Research Campus in the City of Richmond in Contra Costa County for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (11/2002) .:. Evaluated Conditions of Approval for the proposed intersection of Mulholland Highway and Hazel Nut Court in Los Angeles County and provided testimony to the Board of Supervisors for Seminole Springs Mobile Home Park (11/2002) .:. Reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Pacific City Project for the City of Huntington Beach (9/2002) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for North Yorba Linda Estates in the City of Yorba Linda for Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger (9/2002) Tom Brohard and Associates Tom Brohard, PE, Page 8 . .:. Conducted the Hacienda Road Traffic Calming Study and presented the final report at locally televised meetings of the Traffic Committee and the City Council in the City of La Habra Heights (10/2001 to 9/2002) . .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in Initial Studies with Traffic Impact Analyses for three residential subdivisions in the City of Pittsburg for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2002) .:. Conducted the City Wide Traffic Safety Study and presented the final report at meetings of the Traffic Committee and the City Council in the City of Rolling Hills Estates (4/2001 to 5/2002) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR, rebuttal to responses, and testimony at a public hearing regarding extensions of Corona and Valley View Avenues in the City of Norco for C. Robert Ferguson (1/2002 to 4/2002) .:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment, rebuttal to responses, and testimony at public hearings before the Ventura County Board of Supervisors regarding intersection improvements proposed by Caltrans at State Route 118/State Route 34 in Ventura County for the Community of SOlo is (12/2000 to 10/2001) Tom Brohard and Associates . . . . . ted1nl~~IiI~~,llifla~~ancf UIlllItIQn~"pport for lheEnvlrOni1lenl SOlUW ATERlAIR PROTECflON ENTERPRISE 20 I Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor Santa Monica, California 9040 I Fax: (310) 393-4909 Matt Hagemann Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhaf!emannuv.swaoe.com October 26, 2005 Gloria Smith Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 65 I Gateway Boulevard, Suite 900 South San Francisco, California 94080 Dear Ms. Smith: We have reviewed the Draft Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report, as prepared on September 26,2005 for the City ofTemecula. We have the following comments on the proposed project's potential for impacts on water quality. We have also noted in our review that the DEIR failed to discuss potentially significant issues related to hazardous waste and the geologic setting, including proximity to the Elsinore Fault and the potential for liquefaction. 1. The EIR Fails to Identify Hazardous Waste Sites The proposed hospital is located within 250 feet of two gas stations where leaking underground fuel tanks are the subject of ongoing assessment and cleanup activities. A Chevron station at 31669 Hwy. 79 is listed as open at the Cal/EPA "Geotracker"web site (htto:// geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/reoorts/luft.asl'? global id=T0606599286&assigned nam e=MAINSITE). Contaminants in groundwater are gasoline-related, including methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), tert-buytl alcohol, (TEA) and toluene. An ARCO station at 44239 Margarita Road is listed at the Geotracker web site as undergoing assessment and cleanup activities . (htto://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/reoorts/luft.aso?global id-T0606599255&assigned nam e=MAINSITE). As with the Chevron station, contaminants in groundwater include gasoline-related compounds. These gas stations are listed by the City of Temecula in the General Plan as "open fuel leak cases. In accordance with the City's General Plan: "any new development that involves contaminated property will necessitate the clean up and/or remediation ofthe property in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local requirements and regulations. No construction will be permitted to occur at such locations until a no further action or similar determination is issued by the City's Fire Department, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other responsible agency." http://www.citvoftemecula.orwcitvhaWCommDevDivisionIPlanninwgpupdatelFi nal%20EIR/5 7%20Hazards%20and%20Hazardous%20Materials.pdf . The project is located adjacent to two sites that are listed as open and are actively undergoing assessment and cleanup for hazardous materials. The ElR does not acknowledge these sites and their cleanup status. Groundwater is less than 25 feet below the ground surface at the project location and exposure to the gasoline-related compounds via the water or vapor pathways is possible during construction and within buildings pot- construction. Therefore, a full DElR should be prepared to identify potentially significant impacts of contaminant exposure to workers and hospital staff and patients to these contaminants. Any pathways of exposure that would result in risk to human health should be mitigated prior to construction. 2. The EIR Fails to Identify the Location of the Project Near an Active Fault Zone The ElR does not disclose that the project is located within 2500 feet of the Elsinore Fault, a fault that has generated a magnitude 7.0 earthquake along its southern segment in the late 1800s. The Temecula General Plan identifies the Elsinore Fault as an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. This designation, pursuant to California's Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code, Section 2621 et. seq.) limits the types of construction and other activities that can occur within the Elsinore Fault Zone to prevent damage associated with ground surface rupture. . A DElR should be prepared to fully disclose the potential significant impacts on the project from earthquake shaking and fault rupture. rn accordance with the General Plan, the DElR should include completion of geologic investigation by a State-licensed engineering geologist is required to demonstrate that the project will not be constructed across any traces of the Elsinore Fault. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault in accordance with the California Public Resources Code. 3. The EIR Fails to Identify the Location of the Project in a Liquefaction Hazard Zone According to the Temecula General Plan, and as shown in the following figure, the area underlying the proposed project is especially prone to liquefaction and has been mapped in a "liquefaction hazard zone" (http://www.citvoftemecula.orwcityhalVCommDevDivisionIPlanninwgpupdate/Final%20 EIR/5 6%20GeololN%20and%20Soils.pdf. p. 5.6-4). . 2 . r~fo.:M . S/i,iiilkHmr<l. 1<<9if. . ..' . . _.~.......""'!" "..._-. ,CidiiIlt1~~.IW'~ .-~~, lcm:xm0lr~ :.....'..$j~pt.~-~ :.____ :"ru.~~:~~ ';,=:rfS);ua~~ . v .' ,-~t.W: -l1!OllO".: H-,:H.~:icd.- ....,....i:.-..:-, ." .' 1: . The ErR fails to discuss the geologic setting of the project and fails to identif'y the project's location within a liquefaction zone. A full DEIR should be prepared to identif'y that the area under that proposed hospital is prone to liquefaction and to identif'y specific ways in which these conditions can be mitigated. . 4. The DEIR fails to Discuss 303(d) Impaired Water Body Listing of Nearby Waters Twelve miles of Murrieta Creek are listed on the 303( d) list as an impaired water body for phosphorous pollution. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has listed sources to include urban runoff and storm sewers, unknown nonpoint sources, and 3 . unknown point sources (htto://www.waterboards.ca.eov/tmdlldocs/2002ree9303dlist.odfl. Additionally, 18 miles ofthe Santa Margarita River, the primary drainage course within the Planning Area, are also listed as impaired for phosphorous from the same sources. The DErR states that Murrieta Creek is one of two main tributaries to the Santa Margarita River: "The creeks drain the inland portion of the Santa Margarita River Basin and join with the Santa Margarita River at T~mecula Canyon." (pg. 5.8-3) Although the Regional Board's lMDL priority is classified as "low" for Murrieta Creek, the potential for additional phosphorous contamination from the development project should be evaluated in the a revised DErR. Urban runoff typically contains phosphorous as a main pollution component. Since potential exists for phosphorous contamination to travel downstream into the Santa Margarita River, further degrading its water quality, it is imperative that mitigation measures as specific BMPsbe addressed within the DEIR that describe how phosphorous contamination will be prevented from entering the Murrieta Creek. Furthermore, the DEIR states that flooding of Murrieta Creek banks has occurred during times of heavy rain: "Frequent overtopping of the Murrieta Creek channel by floodwaters in a number of channel reaches, flood inundation of structures with attendant damages, and other water-related problems are caused during major rainstorms, resulting in increased emergency costs, automobile damage, and traffic disruption. Murrieta Creek has been altered since the late 1800s and has been channelized for flood control purposes since the 1930s. Restoration of the natural functions of the creek is planned, including the banks, channel invert, tributaries and floodplain." (pg. 5.8-3) . It is important that this flood potential be mitigated prior to development to protect water quality of Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. Flooding of the developed site can contribute urban contaminates to the creek, which include but are not limited to debris, oil, grease, herbicides, and nutrients from fertilizers such as phosphorous. Mitigation measures should be evaluated in the DEIR and implemented upon development. 5. Failure Achieve NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 Requirements Applicants of construction projects disturbing one or more acres of soil are required to file for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order No. 99-08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). The proposed development is thus subject to the NPDES permit requirements. The General Permit also requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should contain: . 4 . . . . a site map which shows the construction site perimeter; . existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points; . general topography both before and after construction; . drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. The DEIR fails to meet the NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 requirements and does not include a SWPPP, nor discuss specific mitigation BMPs. Additionally, the DEIR omits the discussion of post-construction stormwater management best management practices (BMPs) as required by Sections A of the SWPPP in accordance with NPDES General Permit. Given post-construction adverse impacts on water quality associated with the project's operation, such as anticipated water pollution due to increased traffic volumes, typical landscaping upkeep, and equestrian uses of trails, discussion of post-construction stormwater BMPs is critical to ascertain the effectiveness of these BMPs to mitigate such operational impacts and meet applicable water quality attainment objectives. The DEIR omits the inclusion of water quality monitoring programs as required by Sections B of the SWPPP in accordance with NPDES General Permit. The NPDES permit requires that a SWPPP also include a sampling and analysis strategy and sampling schedule for discharges from construction activities that directly impact water bodies listed on the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Section 303(d) impaired water bodies list for sedimentation. Since both Murrieta Creek and Santa Margarita River are listed on the Regional Board's 303(d) list as impaired for phosphorous, a revised DEIR should be prepared to include a monitoring plan for the establishment of baseline water quality conditions, prior to construction, to evaluate and validate the effectiveness of the BMPs, to measure the effectiveness of the BMPs and avoid further degradation of the impaired waterways. 6. The DEIR Contains an Inadequate Water Supply Assessment The project is subject to the requirements outlined by the California Water Code section 10910, also known as SB 610. This law requires that the public water system, which in this case is the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA). This assessment is included as Appendix G within the DEIR. However the assessment is insufficient according to SB 610 and fails to meet the following requirements as outlined within the bill: Groundwater - Basin Description, PWS Pumping, and Sufficiency Analysis 10910. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the Water Supply Assessment: 5 (3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant (0 subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b) from any basin from which the proposed project will be. . The DEIR explains that additional water supply for the project will be available via local groundwater sources: . "To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the RCWD intents to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the following alternatives: (1) Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned RCWD-owned wells. . . " (pg. 4-34) However, the WSA does not include a "detailed description and analysis" of the most recent groundwater usage, including source locations and pumped volumes for the past five years, or provide a detailed description of projected water usage volumes, as mandated by points (3) and (4). . Additionally, within the WSA (pg. 7) the following is stated regarding groundwater volume: "The amount of groundwater which can be produced varies due to such factors as rainfall, recharge area and amount and location of well pumping capacity." In the event of a drought with decreased surface water flows the WSA states that "increased groundwater extractions along with implementation of conservation and other measures" will makeup the difference. Without calculated projected groundwater volumes there is no way to guarantee that groundwater can be considered an adequate source. The DEIR needs to quantifY the range of variable groundwater volume and then evaluate the most conservative scenario to demonstrate quantitatively that water demand will still be achieved. . 6 . Sincerely, '.ltc{[~/(~~, Matt Hagemann Lisa Cuellar . . 7 . M"d.<<:hl!w.Jlil.g~maJUl P'fiifJiipiil . R~lrJry antl'1.1(igaliIJij $rqi{!iJrJ,Sl/.eNa/ist RegtlW{Qfy'epmpliii~~e' 111ve~lll!tiqn al1l1:R'enwdl~tli>n5tJ';l.t~gi~ Hyd,-qgilOlogie C-l!;ira~teiilzit1,iql1 . LlIig.litillli,sul!~<ii'1 . l!lWwrWl~ . ~~fJ!!rCb .. t!ldUcilitf6\i:. . 'M'.&:ti.egie"I;GeOlOgy, eaiifotiria State Ullivtrsit:y1.os ~eles;'LmAnge~, CA, 19$4, . ~. DeSW\"Gl<!llogyj HUllJboI<!t sweUnivOJ'SjIy,Are:at)l.GA.l1!SZ, . j~hii1tee"i:tif..ca!ti;S~ienoo;,lJiliv.;rwliQflJ~e~ Eugmie,OR, 1~S1. ", . -,' "',' ---. --. -. .. . - - --- '-,' ..- -.- -- ... l'i"'bfejddnal EialeFienll<l. . .MiliiJli,~.o\!eT'15'yeiitsote~en.~ jn.%;eyartlili; 'If <mvlr~llls~l!1lmt lIltdwl!1<lliilltilih:He$pe!i.tth }!iiilrs . \'Ilillithe.U_Sc':rwAii..tlli>Rr:;;AA'"",dSll~tJl"Il~'aWst(!VIl<;l'~a~l!A~$'~.;l1io/.,~le~ ~<11i"YA<iviS\lr ~'!.he: .. \y ~lqlf.RegiiJl1IliOt'lilJe 'WIlen;. heddemlfi&\;;itil,;t!l!hlf-tlttiiiitll t<lgi<nindWa(et room pe,,;lilorilteauu. MTBE. \iihik w!t!lEPl\. !I1lllt 'i1~ set\"e.d as ''I :$'pnior Hym;<lg\l.Cl!Qgisil/t.ellsutnlll th<itapld:.......ssl!1lmt ilfei!l!it 'lIl11jotnliliMi fa~il.ifieS ti~gcbase'!'~ Re1eJi ~ en&.l'C~.ill;ttll~ tllliIct:pl"()visillll$'i?fR,~ ~~"'I$~ wmiQrig.cOtl Oi'liij'l'eJy'Wtthp'erftlitl>olderdo' "mvii hi' aro" e<!I<l'cthiunci(etiZatJl)l)and '-Vllter lliy mnnticl '. . P" . '. . . 1l)'Ip.. 'j g<. gtj. '.'. ... .. .'. qtlIl.. ,l1ilf. , ~. . M'ilti~'wor~dlosplY\0l!fU:~. m>A:leg~I'coUll$~hnd ilt<l'fei!b!li(;al'sfatfof~1 ~tates..in tbe.applit1ationand'.. enfoc<le\il~nl,1ifR(;lQ\i Sa~Diiiltfug Wllfer,Act'a!ld.~ WliierA~t reguIlitioll$, Ma\thastnulIl!d,tlict.idJi1ill,jl. . .~{f ili"til.'Sliiiea!QI'C8lintrilia, IIa'Wllir.Ne"a<l11"Ailron'Hllid't~ tetrilliry,.,(G!IllihiI! .1Iie <;ond!'et'af.inves~i!l\i1jI.1iis, . .. - ::.' . :._ - ._ '. _. ,'-'. - . .,_,__ _, _',' ____ - ___-"n' , _"'_ ___.... _, __ . , ' H.1iIiiI;"~tet f..~k.....~.," .~"" s.-iii\",,---hin""'i$. .g_". .."'. """"""'w".....,"'." .~'.... "'v. ,~ll . , .. . 'P-li~iiftili!i'Matt1iaililtlld:iridilife: F.o"ulJ~PafutbtimdSefillitReg,i1lilwt}\cj\Wyst; SWAl'lr, 8eni6iEriV1mii1l1eii1li1 :Atllt:lyst;KOiDe" H2(}SC1~.ce, 'Ine; ':,- ,..:.,.:'__'. .'. .;', ,'. _""," ','. .. .' -. . .J ,c .... .. . EiteculiVeDfreetori~~~liStW~ .liy<itllgqiit~Na!tOiialPllik:Sen<ic.e,'(Wllter Re$1:\ilrile'sPiViShlif; Si:.1li~'Sci~~..Policy .Mlvi~t llil'<t i.lydid!l,e'oiogiSt; UE. ElIVirotirfi<;l11lil Ptil'teCiio~ Aj?eocy;' · ,A:.ljUltCI~tIIW M~, ~ Rtlli!e1ll..1;\),St.lteUiliver.S!ly, I;>epa,(tnlent.:<ltJ;Jets'~\Cti"es; · ~llStmctO!,~IIllg!>Q(~~ae~J,ltQfSciel1ee; .. . Ooo1Ggis1, U~.l'oie.ii$eM~'~ .. OMJXjg~ DIiilieS &l>hillie>. .. . ".Kiln'Y!~9geiSidlIf,ltJ!d<\.1l1Iitf" F. ClliiitullJi-iyViJae ,';"_',-,-'_""'_.'-',.,'_,' _" ",.u "";.""......^"~~ ~~.. MaftheW Htilget1fariH . 1 Senfor.~ellUlato.."'anaEn\iirOJlm(\ntai;AnaivstJ . Wi1h:>W~E.cMjjWiltei;mi~i!t~~.l!iive!nillu4ed: . 'p'rojed.nuitlli~r.t\itjtd"s~~~~Jliiii;.\tioiiSt!J1poitjilla,*;j\~o~W.@iS.o~s!li1lXt.~~. ~'~r~~idt 'fel~a~"if:~~..cu~Qli.~ 1Osil#fOO$ d~ watllrlil'.ini1j(ji: r~i\lilil\dliulidt~':org~'~*>>iil .t!U:~~Qt.qalifAj:\lf~' . . ~.t~\1~wel!'ifelWi1>>j1JiIllti.ilil;!jllp.$Cf:~!lttiin.jllimli:tYingisig#tl:Wlil\ti.~1l~"~..te~t9'~~s'~\'A$.t", . wa~,qniiliir'lliiil;ge\>to~:h~''''rilS' ... . liiil;iOllitbf"lr~ijJli;~.Ailli:Jft!ilfass;stlligiWlth'tlieifre$jliirise. t<ip.m:}jlotlite;99tjii1!ti.im(yll~iitlffil G$lor~lltvjlt 'lil\d'telalea<lii~w.Mrt-ersl.llJ}il~. . Wiili,'~in~ Ii20..$Oien~~hti;".Mil~'$4i1li9s;in!:i\lded.tlie'lQ!l0w!i111: ,....:~Oit;~'Il!il::repoit.Oil:'the'~i1fli<#JilQl'I1reci?il~n-OJl~bylls.~d,w~~.by~~. .,I:f.S:;aP.Ai'(\imIhlsltatOr'lliid.'~netlUCiMlseI: .,,' "'Sil!l!ort'l>selttCWnf.~'<:te.~jlJhent i>f'a,;C"'t~~reiieItSive,electrotucan:\".ji1tBal:ti:ve'Cbt6i1b~,ot!_f;,uie}' ~rcn;'ln..t~~n.. . . ..' .S~tiil)rc,~,*"li'ri.ilth~d~IIe.(QP~.<itjt'c.o_i1lptIIh'll$ive,el~oni~aily,illt~'ic~lilom'orfllit\i~lll~ 1i$6,:tes~it'anai1igll1illl~ . Se1tlot 11ls~t;rtrcaSnl1'lY t(lJlt ~tilllleS 'h;jijoliwi<le ~'. (Ofl>f1'.B& ~l1l.iQii.ajId' diitt1<:lit!! '~, .,ltIlWI1lJiIlt. "i!iR,~ilt~'tQ~~litf~i~t9,j;S(Qfe~ \Wr~r Silp~ii@' tilal;,blJ\1lill_~ c.oilt1IilimateII'tly:cM:J.m.l!l. .. . .;.~\fOiniil-a#!l'l\rew~()t1t .....~::'..;';~t:::~=:::!~=~i~=:~~t.:::::t~~lill,~.AlJ#~~\~{~t . . ':~~i~fI1~te!iili~.lllfdt~~'ileiidlliIt\s; . . ." -:J\l4V~lQPinillit\'if's'1tmJllC"IiPPtilJl~ii~.Jiij-liftatjjlp'(ifCOJlllirni'li.lellSitili!. mebli$t).llafil;r1lWiliililiehl'$:-ilil<j "-":t~i9t$, . ... . ~eeullWJ)lr~lll':. ........... . .... . '.. ...... ...... . . .... .... .. ...... ~""tb:;.l1&Ex~~tJiI\1l:I~()l"\\~Otall~Go1\Sl'Wat~; Matt!~~.effQi:t$!Qre-$l.Or6wat"t..~~ltt0ta6$~' . ..(rOnIlf,Y_Iie~us:~multipte~OWC~$()~IW~:tt(lll'ililliu,</i1I!}~n<tmlOtFajId:tjre,d.isclW;tc$l:it'\mt~~fu; '~,1Q.a,'~liifrll"o1'}ni!Wltif$tJiilrfufllillW l(ip,~Si:lilii~~ i\WP..J~d\iig~\rQil!/m.~~!i'j~,~ ... . ;.~~Ji,flnfll$~iSs''P4i!~'''lire~:llf".fi1llitm1taiIdll-Sll31e1:Hlir-WiiSiei- t .......i(ijij.. "fu'i1i4ttlie'- ~e~~ ~.m9~~~'~~o;!'\i'W'lges.me:P1W;rg.liol!.pJj!l!WldeJ~-fead..Week1$~<nle..,!!hei1~'e'llu'h,yW.' .~#!ltr~H~~Iii.or~1:, . . . . ~~~.?io~:. .'. . "~_.1"~ffi,()1':~lWi'>lqe:'t\iilll'l/leU;~;.l!ily.iro)t~~I'.~~~li!lill'o-.1W!!flr,.~:il.f~'W1l,<l$~l!lt~"Ii?;#lm~~" .....==;~~i:~~=~:;:~~~:::~~:Z~:dj::~~~~~... ~!io:~l.\vi!i~;il'~~s.f~llo~: . . .. .~........""" . GurriciJ";!rtrVitq~ 2 '.. .. . ..... 'Wefforlsto. rtiOllH .groui1.dwuter' flowarid..Wrilailiil\'ariltrnnspoit;.efi5tifet! adtiquaqrof'moolt6fllig-lleQVOfks, · . '- ,':''-:-_', ",,-, -"-- - .:,- .:' ~, '. - - . ;iUd;l!SSessl:\l~JI#lO\!~ahernad\f~$fot(:j)\!\3l11iI\af<ldStldl~""\!"I..~iJ. )\!jil!l'Q!1lld~f<tt, .' '. .. . .... '" ..' . ... .....lnl!i;li<\dfa~lli()milPro~!.&:!t.""'~lUl11il)o(ifgm\!l).d~!!W.!\ll~l'tll~tf~WI4:Il\~Ql}';\!l).f1~,,\!>..afl!1l!j~. .~s. ~.. .' 'llI~.ntifiedc;.uergiiIgiiS.Ui:S;wrOtetecliiriCllrgwdliil:CeiiliiilalisiS'teCi'illpohci;lll1d.atiobdeVlikipmf'~\1lih . . W<li:k'qnfotU:~ofiaiU;$,E.l'-A.Workgrol!Ps.in~ludi~g1he'$upe~.Gr<illl1iiwa'lli1'~!ni~t..~tum; . M:tbct.-mquest-of'1i1eState otHa"!llii; Mail deve1up~.amethadi>iogy.ill <ie~lhelll!~!'2hilijyQt'~uniIwa*" .'~ ~e6~tarlliliatioll .on . th? isbulds.of Maui and Q:\liu. Heused'lliililyiic1n fuOIIclS irod: a om'.tO slliii."v. 2:riil:lis (if'- .. :~biiitY;'1l11d_the.l;esulls. ,,'ereadoptMl!1fQ:pubUsl\M ~Y'1li<\,$tate-lifll..WJiii'iIi1(IJC{jlUlt1r1f-Ma\li_ As;"J1t~geQ1Ogist -wil)\'t\1eJjI>A ClroUI\"wi1te~ Prgtectl!in' Se<:llo!li . Nl~ltwodi\ili will.>-l)fiivl~-Qf ~!Wi~' - '~DlfiiI<lng'w~iei:J(c[ana.NEPA:fo'prevent dtInldli~. waier- Coirtafuliliiliofu gJll:Cffiii'diciMliea:ifil:!Uilell:tJiij:fbll~'..:' .. .' Rei:eill!JdalHlPABl'oDze:Mcilal'for his: CQnltiJiutiiln: to thll develilllrneil'l ofi1iiliUl!a.l[iuldllitCfHOrilm"jfI'li~Ot!PiL 'l)fdrin1<111i' water. . . .. . ~~ged; the Sole Slruree.A'luifet .P(t)gtllll! ll11d;proleeted-~ ~lt1<tg ~tet ofotwpeo.t!lliI'l4tie:; 1!iroiIgb desigpatiOJi under llieS<illi ~g W,ti:r ,\:i;(; .l{ept!lJ.i;Il~dgei>lo~';;!~rts, <9l!\ll1ctellpllbUc -4~g$i-aml .. feSpliilded10 piibli~commoiit5 'frllmresidetttS woo were ve-.:y OOut;CiiiclhllitiIiHh;,'~Desi!l*'iiriiic .. R~IlWed.anwl1ber.Of wiVirdllllleiitlll'rmpaCl Sta~.fOf Pkilli1ediUli,illi' devdlipmenlli, iliilludiiI#:.1ilige . . ".bij;;.j!i'<}.OllS'apd~~i;d w.aste disp<!Slll taci1ilfus,!ni_~e~fi~iaiYandwa~ I1jllj$t~t. . Matt:S!'IVod as,a,hY. 'dio.geologist :wjtli~RaRA'Hazanlotis- Wa~'pr<>&l~ DIilli:S:wei"e as'fulIows; . .',' . -. '; ';.',' -., . . .- ~iSed the .hYdrogeologi<; mv.e,s!ill\ltion oJ ~ WllSte siles'lD..jet~ lli:l!i1Plilinf;'fwitll',$}l1jlillc:C . i' eltlelits. . <lfl'!lt- " . . '-R""iewed:lind wrote "jlarfB" ~nnils;'for t/1e dl.Wos:il:l)f~tl\l"<mll$WIl~' " . ciinilueted ReM COrteetiv",^~lll)tLiiivestigatio1lS' Of\\-lIsl!i'sj!es lI!id1et!.~I!9I\S $Ii foi-incil.t1le ~lli. !tit. . : ji~lie,mtelifotcellt01it-aciiQnslliiil wetC:lle,illopeltiii lllosttootdifillWin Wltlt Jj~Ajll~1 cr/)1insek . '. .-. wrote coulSGl.specitlcatJons a:!d.supeNisejl(:;jul11it:lbr's,in\tesl;gatill'ilsOfwl!Ste-si!es: \Vitij:i1l1#'!lll!lji>~':Piirl\".$#tr:JS~.'.'Mif!tdir~!ll4~nr~w:i!ll:'@~!!i~M!.iJf.~li;i(1\:!\iI~"!lit~!...~ ~~~Z~== .......... ..... ....... '.' .' ..'i:~~l~~~~clli~elS'6fwe~(l~tiiU!,~Qihl@ia~~~'~~iia\i~iljiJlt<\~,;~ ~W M~~~!ll!illail.~~~:: . ";~\lI!Fti1l~~J\t1:ii!~jip~i1fiate't~b:<C'i1Cti"ns'-anaer'€mroLA, . ....... ... '.. '.' . '. .... .' '.. .....~ ..R~Wl(lii~d~;!l~..ll1*"qbJil!l;t;ell~it:!ii\lliejjra(winjilijll!<l"';alld~Wyf*1fmtillli)lkp;td;t'\l1iile'~~',w~jj\.'.' ~il~q~IWnil<jlr<l()J'-...........'. >............... ......... .... . .... ..............i. ...... .. ;~'aui1toi-e(f;tWo1i~pets.~!lthep<ltl'llfi"lt6.rWj\i#~()!!-!ilmin~Vill1,~)h~;'~p;~f\\~!!lr9fJl~.\il\I~~;~;. . . '.' .:smwifiiiQil~"~plijler$:-seM~Ji~ilWJiaSiS.1fiitFllit'ile~jil~llt.:~f;lliffiM~ii~c.y,t>>i..lhe:~:.~t.llf~ ..."'~W~~.iJiN~~~l!jil;~ _i ..' . .'0 .,(ijq~1'111li:d:~.ti!e-F'ederal'Mll1tMAl(en9~rsoureewllfut,Al\l'eamell~!!ii'4~tiictei),;il>W,\rter. .A~lli>1t bi;w. ~uJi.!mvltqe a MCltthew'ri~6~1ifj iiMtev:. '.' ..... . . .. .......... '. .. ........... . .... .. serliediis~nnir_~ftf~t!lie ;sli!)ior;Scl~PllIJCY .A\ivi$~...yJm liJe U:$,Eit\'h-~~t3f'!'it~~Ol)'~~; R~9: Mli~'ti.:siOOud!!4.~fOlio~ .' . . .' ..' '. '. '. .' f.. ,Advl$ea'tlle[~ilalAdminlsltaUJt'llliif$enlqr.~tltl"\litIlli.~li. iS$b.ei$, S!@l,jl$tIliljllilemililrorllle.. ,!l~~lheaildlli'Ye,1ifmIl~~.iPl#:!l.llMtl:,~cqnfitrtj~~;dJiln~~~: . .. Slilll?ed'ep'''Ms'.tl'~tkwli1i"t~'to.~.;jlJt<i~tHhW~W!!l!l.l'l!!~1egto,'1li$l!Ild''br:!;Il~@g,t\!..l\'Ill~iiIi~e, iiiIj)lI,d/ll!l'1J\i>,'OIllCi:-"cirR~a1l!l}il-e~~l:J!!!l1~~,(j:x,~~esin'Wltfur:~tmat'lnlmina!iw>wd ".--." , .' . .., -'.-'.' - ... .' . . . ~ea~Needg. .~iOVedt1re!<;cltlll~ltrliiJliljg";iJf.EPNs;$i'<liilifib1ll1di~ii1!l.Slitre .'. . . .. ....' , ~ ", ~,amlSPA:BfiInie~j'iot~ting!lil'i'l"!igiUil'$$'@it~enjlSlS'anaeugm<\C$.ill';nelj<itia~\\\ilIt'1}jO .' '.4~trntopIUl!l5~!!l9r'Iil8,~g~JlI'w'l1.;Ji~~1ll\~\lt~_~~~wm@:il>Ili;ii1e;~~kms;~, . . "'~"" '~Jll~Mdi~!!o,~l,pti)i'oCfil(o,r;l1le~ri~w9!'!lG!\'lllMie~,e~i . ~ilillotf; ....... .' .... . wim~U;S,FQr~tStllVl~;'M31t'lediilVes1ill,lli~w ~,ljjij;qll]lll sthl)lli1}'of'ilteaS ptOp0iledXdr~r !l.~H\1ithe~ltal Qt'ego,l;\qo~:l911111ikSpecinc,llelivj!ies.~11<'llsi<:l~~; .. . . . 'M~edgeol!lgy.itrtJI~..jiilJ<!,\l!ltl:~daedal.phlll!lgn,q1l!ie'\i,lt{(lpleli!jilltl'a~I11li!l\~#!Itli~~"\!l..~e_e ,s1ljpe slilllili4;' .' '. . ..:;:i~::~~~a~:t~::e:e::~':=:~~~~e:=::~~~.. . . . . '- - . . .' .... ~';l:~onsult;mt<WilhDIIil.1l;S;<liri~'Mb!li!l;;~Wa$eiili1~lf~~~.~r~\~~.~~m\t!le'J?~IlY!id,' '.' '~Q",..a;r~A~a;,~l\e'nil~ilP\I$:~jHli1eil1t'JiSt_(}1iIl~9n:..nuues''hiel_'l6li'1lffii<lWitt8, .. ':$*t1>i~'Y!:lU',ltiJig,~lt~rltQr$diJ.;~~~.unfflillr'il'Di.J)lijjg. ..(;onilti~~;llguifetiesls, .. 'li1ves~~;l~.(au:ll$;l*,ll,*fJr~i\espl'</P.psed'l'l!1" ~,d~~$4iilp9r.ll, .. ,........t.I:':;~!~~.;~tl~~glit1ltl~~~!liJl;~~;tll...C~~911~~~~J~itylW!\~; ..: ,"~f;~.'t'~9~~~~~~!~(\4~~J~t~~~f@lt~~;~!!8l!l~\l~~ci:li~J!ll~_.. ...........~il#illt1i!p!i~t~i;trnt~~_~%1@tl.d.~~'iiQri~~~ .,.SetV.~lt$;'ae~tteetlieii..1>ll6~~1ili;ii.jm~~~q~ . . . ..1I'aii~;oou~~m)'ei1IritOi1tti\>t\tiil~lcj~'aiia.i)cealiq~:a~d1e~lliille.<if~,. . . . , --. lteWit~ 'R'-a'lICtIMindJ'reseiiaffoDS: . .... . ltlili'~\fon; ~F;'100J" P..el:'CJJlotafeeim!llmlliliUOh<i1'"1he ~ol'iidi>J.Th'~-A""jliqiMesll. Invitet1;.pi'~mm.;W<l ~ of trilia1'ti:peseil.laii~jPiit\{et A'Zi ..... . . . . . . -. . . . .'. - . ..... . . ....~liiillilicMj1;itOO:3i..J~ci;iJtp~~ate-.o1l;'tllld~9Rm\di1"RiVeva'nit~~W~,~~i...., ,*~/~t,~Ili,,~~~;'ttI~i~~~ii,~~i,;J:Q~~~ftT~~ ...... ..... .. . .... ..... ".' ,\\$, . . ,.. , .. .. . . . .. . . . . ""I~t'~t'~;~:~~~I=~~tit~lriJiI9t\t4~:1l:w~~i,w_CqlJlllil\!M!1tr~i~' ~mCU!lJmVltae . ." . 4 Matltlaw' /'logEiJi$rffl .. . 'lfugem-ann, MJI., 2003. A DeditcuVe.APProa"Chto'thl::A$lle$Slnecl1l ofPetC!ilQrate(!;l)n"tatiJinatloil. lltYiltd p~(Jltitin 10ili",CiilifotnillAss,einbly Nlitui:id Rilsouttes,Cilmmi!ll!e. t{ageman:n, Mif.;,-2i\O:Ll'ercbloiRltl,ACold Wa, Leglley: in O;lnkiag .water. Prese1ltlllion to a meeting <>filie i-!a(lOMiGr~dmIIe!" ~litin.. .i'!:l1"te.mll1ln; f/{.F .,~092; . ilii;lm1;ank to 1'ap::ACbro!lllJogy ol',MTIi! in 6x9oodwal!lr. Presentatjol1 toa llIeeting \II '\!Jl:-:N,.irl<illlil Gt-<1UP4~ti1"A"$lIQl:.iJ!tion. . .. , . ';a~"eiil"ai1l1; M~" 20P2.- M Esliiluite of ilie Goat to AdiheSs MTBFCilnfilmjriatlon-in G!:oundwater '. taJili W1t<i':Will~. presetltlUil>JlIO:li-ilieeIi1lll1()t'.llil:- NatioimHiftiwidViater ASs<>cialioh.. .. . '. . '.. .tl;~=::~~r~~~-~~~t:!~~:-=~n::i=~~;t=d . . . . . . i{itgellllUjri, M;Y;, 2001. .F~oiu:Ta'I11n()'Thp:A CtitollllJogy ofMtilJ:r1nGI'~. Unpnlllisbi;4rllt!Olt. . j'fagelllann" 1\<1.11" 20(lL ~ed - C1CiIli.up ~Slfor ~S 1n GWl.ltldWawr Used as: Diilt1citig W-ai&_ 'ulij>ujjiishedrejJlltt. .~age\Wtfin.l\L'F" mojo ESiiipatJ;!lCOslSto- Address M'rflEol,teleii."" from Leaking Uitlj.ergi9U1\dSwm,ge-Tankll, . -Unpu"bIlSlietire(i\1rt. ... . . '. . . .. - . - ~geiliaju;,;~,.~ndVJtiili.:lnll;wti1<,~, 1m, 'P<>l.en11al"Vater~ty. Conc~.l,teI~'loSntl""""bile;~'llle. - . ;,*li~';ReSou[cl:S'fliviBi(1),l\Iiitjo~l'piut Sen~;T~eal R~~ v.~werik; . M. lIlld;ll'lIg~iI'lltl1i1..1~f;F;1999;' Water QIlliIllYCl>llC\\nJ$ :Reblll\<tlo Fersoiml WaterornitUsal!\>. .Wat~sourc~s-J.:?hlls\tm.:Na1iofiJ\l.Yatk$etvice; Tecihnle;i1"Report. Hllt~nni M;F.;.1999, 'Is DlhillOti-the S.o)ulioli to Pollullbnm Naiiomil Pai:ks-'l Thl: Georgll: Wrlglir St5eieIji . ,.... , _n _ ' . :i'11l1l)~"-' ' A';';'_;;;;~ 1';i1mh ""'-1'.- ", . _",'_ , _,,,, .~~~~g,,"~;v~~,'.,, _ _ .' ,.~;v\>W:~- . . . . . . . - ~ '. . ... .. .' ;:::me:~,:=~:!::~~~~~ ~(Jtolllldlt.lrer.U.S.liPAal!pei1iIiJlfGrt!ul\\!WlIlif' '," "',',, ,." ,.... '.,.....-- '" -' . ... _ "L" . '... .'. ,', ' .' , . . ". -. . . -.. . . - . "," ,-'- "." - . , "', " ,-" . . .'. .'. ltlJtl!;jnJll1~ 'l\t;t".anil.G1lk Mi, tj)!l.6;'~~~o,~je.~lItl;,di:llttm,M!l~it'itre14~liyai<"iif$jaliq1l;' .. &nretenrelln:ffililiJsic'ReniediiillOij,of'Cl\IO.n!ilitedIlY.iW~~ Sitlt'~e@ty, . .. - -. 'l'Jl!gelllllDn;il\If;R., ~~~(i;6 l~:tbc;. Y\I)netafillilY'llf-GrOIl!lrlW/ltot'llt"nthrOjiOgenic . '" .Cu'll~ts:llifil1elSia!ido($'ant~Vf!ilL'mwaii WaieiWQr~5~tt(jn~IMee$g;fJ-1i.'!l'" '$lIrObeiI996. . . . . Jlllg~p.a!i~,_l\'i;J!~Ful<'~~"g,a..~G.:t:-., J!J9~~Jii1'gO~9'l~lltetVlllnll!li~iliiy,ir,t~a:l'0lih... '. '. .' . Hll:Widi.:Pr(j_i1~li.Geog"i3p1U~'llilOrli.i\\-uPtl g~erris 1ii'El1Wo~ RieSo~ M~g*nfe,li;.A$:- . ana. W~. M"aila,8"enretit A$so-c-latilljtJ?u1j\il;~liQ'n .VII'~~j. . . . <t-i;irneull1m \lilliTe: ~fthWtv t1qgl';li\1Clnn 5 '~~ntAnni. J'>F.f., 199~"G\'ll\l)1.~\Pf.&ij<lrll';~Q'C'aml. Ct~~, Gl~~lItg'~il;\iy~-'lJ\~iiJ~..' . ~i.Iin~ltarifwnrll(j\'ll~t;t~Rc~,qes~~O<li~tii:lll~l11ii .' . . '" . . . . "Jl~~~.~,;fuIl..sabil!,.,M;A'fI99xd~otlt of'lIietf;;I;,.'ElMdllillc;H!gbjPl!!W$'Slat~'{j~~~Jj~~ . ~':";'6"~'Pr(j' 'i>"'"""..J,~,,i;..Si"'Ij;;m\\ll.lliJl,tg mriri~_' ,~lii"'d:D";'k""ii!lr"of"""''''';';till'iter ' . .."'''_._~r'''''" graJI!;.. ~..... """.... ...... ,'Y~-'--W,.. ._...,W_.'''''''''l!"".. . "".l'''''''.. , . . . . . ~gi!~i4M;E':\ l~j, ,'WS.:.:EPA,P,ii1i~ on '!he: j[Cl\]mical;"'tWilbili~ar' .tne ;C1""""P \)f!':l\llWMil;- . ....,~~1"!i4J~watef"G;iIlll>rlilaG\'ll1Iildwater;~litCll$.~tilillm;Me~, ,-." " -", - - - ~ . .. . .' .' '. " Ira~~~,i\til'~ l~jt l:le~~(j~~Pha$<i qquid':~~ 9~'il~\V~;.AII ~,.of ..... . . ~~i1bn.d)ioc*tfu1~,~tlijnofJmgilillefin&,Gi:olOtimAhiiiiJ!lme~iv<33, . . . . . ' ",.-'- . - ." . .;.",.,. ',.Y.' .,." "' 'clJlfi<:;v,um .v...f<\1El 6 n,' . _.., '. M~Il~WM~~m<;ioo' .' . . . , Comments on Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Report TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Prepared by Petra Pless, D.Env. Leson & Associates (415) 492-2131 October 27,2005 . Table of Contents I. THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN...............2 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SE1TING ARE INADEQUATE ...................................................................;.......................................3 II.A Project Construction Schedule And Equipment Insufficiently Described........................................................... ................ ...............................3 II.B No Grading Plan Or Cut-And-Fill Analysis ...............................................4 IT.C Mechanical Equipment Not Adequately Described ..................................4 IT.D Insufficient Information To Evaluate Cumulative Impacts......................5 IT.E Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards Not Correctly rdentified ........ .... ........ ........ .................................... ................. .........................6 IT.F PM2.5 Emissions Not Analyzed ...................................................................7 II.G No Health Risk Assessment Included.........................................................7 . Ill. THE DRAFT EIR IMPROPERLY DEFERS DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATION PLANS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE...........................................................................................,.............8 IV. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED ..........................8 IV.A Incorrect Construction Period Used For Emissions Estimates.................8 IV.B Model Default Values Not Acceptable ......................................................10 IV.C Fugitive Dust Emissions From Wind Erosion And Trackout Not Included..........................................................................................................10 V. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED............................ll V.A Emissions Sources Omitted .........................................................................11 V.B Emissions From Natural Gas Usage Not Included ..................................12 V.C Incorrect Target Year Results In Underestimate Of Vehicle Emissions..................................................................................... ...................12 V.D Traffic Emissions Underestimated.............................................................13 V.E Secondary Emissions From Electricity Generation Not Included .........13 VI. INCREASED OZONE FORMATION DUE TO URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT IS NOT ANALYZED ...............................................................................14 e i . VII. ADDITIONAL MffiGATION IS FEASIBLE ....................................................14 Vll.A Additional Feasible Construction Mitigation...........................................15 Vll.A.1 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures............................................ 15 Vll.A.2 Diesel Exhaust Mitigation Measures.......................................... 19 Vll.A.2.a CARB-certified Construction Equipment................ 20 VILA.2.b Post-combustion Controls.......................................... 21 Vll.A.2.c PuriNOx........................................................................ 23 Vll.B Additional Feasible Operational Mitigation.............................................24 Vll.B.1 Operational Traffic Mitigation Measures......................;........... 25 Vll.B.2 Operational Area Mitigation Measures..................................~.. 27 VIl.B.3 Mitigation For Urban Heat Island Effect ................................... 29 VILB.3.a Reduction Of Standard Paving By 20% ...................29 Vll.B.3.b Use Of Energy Star Roof Products........:................... 30 VIll. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................33 List of Tables . Table 1: Project Construction Phases...................................................................................9 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: URBEMIS2002 Modeling Output for 36-month Construction Period and Vehicle Emissions Target Year 2009 . ii . . . COMMENTS The City of Temecula ("City") as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") has prepared a Draft Environmental impact Report1 ("Draft EIR") for the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital ("Project"). The proposed Project consists of a General Plan amendment, Zone Change, Development, Plan, Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"), and a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the development of a proposed regional hospital to serve the City of Temecula , and surrounding area. The Project includes construction of a 408,160-square foot, 2-tower hospital complex containing approximately 320 beds, two medical offices totaling approximately 14,000 square feet, a 10,000-square foot cancer center, an 8,000-square foot fitness rehabilitation center, and a helipad. Total building area is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.51 acre site. Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. The Project will be constructed in five phases. (Draft EIR pp. 3-4 through 3-8.) CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which this Draft EIR satisfies. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project before any decisions are made. (14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") Section 15002(a)(1).) A Draft EIR is the "heart" of this requirement. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 84 [118Cal. Rptr. 34].) The EIR has been described as "an environmental' alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (County of In yo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810 [108 Cal. Rptr. 377].) To achieve this goal, an EIR must contain facts and analysis, not merely bare conclusions. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 568.) Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines S 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410, 416]; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426, 436]).) CEQA section 21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures in order to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant 1 City of Temecula, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Temecula Regional Hospital, SCH# 2005031017, September 26,2005. Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 e . adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project. (See Pub.Res.Code ~21081(a); CEQA Guidelines ~15370.) To effectuate this requirement, EIRs must set forth mitigation measures that decision makers can adopt at the findings stage of the process. (CEQA Guidelines ~15126(c).) For each significant effect, the EIR must identify specific mitigation measures. Where several potential mitigation measures are available, each should be discussed separately and the reasons for choosing one over the other should be stated. (CEQA Guidelines ~15126(c).) Mitigation measures should be capable of "avoiding the impact altogether," "minimizing impacts," "rectifying the impact," or "reducing the impact." (CEQA Guidelines ~15370.) Public agencies must deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives and mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council, 222 Cal. App. 3d 30, 41 (1990).) The comments below provide an analysis of the Draft EIR's failure to meet these requirements of CEQA The Draft EIR should be revised to address these issues and be recirculated for public review. I. THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN e The Draft EIR finds a number of significant and unavoidable impacts, necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SoC") should the City certify the Final EIR and approve the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 1-7.) The City of Temecula's General Plan requires that" air quality impacts associated with development projects [be] mitigated to the greatest extent feasible." (General Plan, p. AQ-10, Policy 2.4, emphasis added.) Specifically, the General Plan requires that the City "[a]pprove development that could significantly impact air quality, either individually or cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the impact." (General Plan2, p. AQ-13, emphasis added.) As discussed in Comment VII, the Draft EIR fails to incorporate all mitigation measures recommended by the General Plan to reduce adverse effects on air quality. In addition, as discussed in Comments VIIA and VII.B, numerous other feasible and reasonable mitigation exist that could reduce the Project's significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, the Draft EIR is inconsistent with the General Plan. e 2 City of Temecula, General Plan, adopted April 2005. Page 2 e e . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVffiONMENTAL SETTING ARE INADEQUATE An accurate and complete Project description is the heart of an EIR and is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of a project. As explained in the discussion following Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines,3 an EIR must describe the proposed project" in a way that will be meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision- makers..." The state court of appeal declared that "[aln accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally adequate EIR." (County oflnyov. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 192 [139 Cal. Rptr. 396,401].) In contrast, "[a] curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input." (Id., at 197-98; see also, CEQA fi15124; City of Santee v. County of San Diego, 263 Cal. Rptr. 340 (1989).) As one analyst has noted: The adequacy of an EIR's project description is closely linked to the adequacy of the EIR's analysis of the project's environmental effects. If the description is inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project, the environmental analysis will probably reflect the same mistake. (Kostka and Zischke, "Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act," p. 474 (8/99 update).) , As discussed in the following comments, the DEIR fails to describe the Project and its environmental setting accurately and completely. It omits key project features that have the potential to result in significant impacts. As a result, potentially significant environmental impacts were not adequately analyzed or addressed by the Draft EIR. Therefore, the Draft EIR is fatally deficient under CEQA. II.A Project Construction Schedule And Equipment Insufficiently Described The Draft EIR fails to include a detailed construction schedule with the list of equipment that will be used, the horsepower of each piece of equipment, the hours of operation, the type of fuel used, the length and timing of the individual construction phases, and so forth. Further, the Draft EIR contains no information regarding the expected timing of completion of each of the major project phases as . well as the buildout horizon for the entire Project. This information is typically provided in an EIR but was not. Without this information, emissions resulting from 3 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sees. 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). Page 3 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Revort, October 27, 2005 . construction cannot be accurately estimated. As disdtssed in Comment IV.B, the Draft EIR uses mostly default assumptions to model construction emissions, which may considerably underestimate emissions. II.B No Grading Plan Or Cut-And-Fill Analysis The Initial Study for the Project finds no significant impacts with respect to geology and soils, relying on a geot€chnical investigation conducted for the Project. The Initial Study fails to include this study for public review. According to the Initial Study, the geotechnical investigation recommends over-excavation up to 24 inches below existing grade and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavement. (Appx. A, NOP /Initial Study, p. 16 through 18.) Yet, neither the Draft EIR nor the Initial Study contains a grading plan or any other information regarding the amount of cut and fill necessary for development of the site or the projected amount and location of spoils, if any. Review of the Draft EIR's emissions modeling suggests that only some minor amount of material will have to be im/ exported4. This suggests that the Draft EIR largely relies on balancing the amount of cut and fill of native soil on site with no additional import of fill material or export of excess cut material. Yet neither the Initial Study nor the Draft EIR contains any information demonstrating a that cut and fill can, in fact, be balanced on site. This information is typically derived . from a grading plan, which would ordinarily be provided in an EIR but was not. If cut and fill can not be balanced on site, material would have to be imported or exported, which causes additional emissions. II.C Mechanical Equipment Not Adequately Described The Project requires a variety of mechamcal equipment including heating and air conditioning equipment, emergency generators, boilers, and so forth. None of this equipment is described with any detail in the Draft EIR. Draft EIR provides only the following vague statement: "A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area." (Draft ElR, p. 3-4.) Review of the Project site plan indicates three cooling towers, two emergency generators, two transformers, and a fuel tank located in the mechanical yard. (Draft ElR, p. 3-5, Figure 3-2.) The Draft EIR's noise impact analysis further indicates that 4 URBEMIS2002 modeling assumes 18 vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") for on -road truck travel during the grading phase, suggesting a minimal Im( export of materials, approximately 2500 cubic yards based on the program's default values. This small amount of material is most likely export of existing a pavements, utilities, and other deleterious material that has to be removed from the site. . Page 4 . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005 the mechanical equipment room, which is proposed to be located inside the Phase IB hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard, will contain pumps, chillers, and boilers. Air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and outlet exhaust systems will be located on the hospital's rooftop. (Draft ElR, p. 4-63.) This limited information, scattered over several chapters of the Draft EIR, is entirely inadequate to dp.termine emissions and resulting environmental impacts fro,m operation of the mechanical equipment. A complete and accurate project description must include the fuel, firing rate, and number of boilers; the capacity for the two emergency generators; the type and efficiency of the proposed pollution control equipment; the circulating water flow and total dissolved solids ("TDS") content of the cooling water; the drift rate of the cooling towers; and the information" required to model these sources, e.g., stack location, height, diameter, exhaust gas flow rate, temperature, and so forth. Without knowledge of these characteristics, it is impossible to determine emissions from this equipment and, in fact, they were not included in the operational emissions estimates for the Project. (See Comment v.A.)" II.D Insufficient Information To Evaluate Cumulative Impacts . Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of cumulative impacts of a project" . .. when a project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable." The Draft EIR finds significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project on air quality and, thus, also significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR evaluates impacts "based primarily on 21 related projects identified by the City of Temecula." For a description of 17 of these projects, the Draft EIR relies on a 2002 traffic impact analysis for another project, the Apis Plaza. Rather than providing a summary of these projects in the cumulative impacts analysis section, the Draft EIR refers the reviewer to the traffic impact analysis contained in Appendix D for further information. Yet Appendix D does not contain any information beyond the name and proposed uses of these projects and their projected trip generation; it claims that the Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis is contained in its Appendix E, but the Initial Study failed to include this document. Further, the Draft EIR claims that four additional projects were supplemented, yet it fails to supply any information on these projects. (Draft EIR, p. 6-1 and Appx. D, p. 9.) The Draft EIR contains no information for any of these 21 projects, for example the time period over which they will be constructed, their expected buildout, or the air quality impacts resulting from their construction or operation In short, the information provided in the Draft EIR is entirely inadequate to assess the cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from the Project. . Page 5 Pless, Comments On Temecula ;(egional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 e II.E Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards Not Correctly Identified Particulate matter is emitted from two sources, engine exhaust and fugitive dust. The health impacts of particulate matter depend on its size, and the size depends on its source. Combustion sources, such as vehicle exhaust, predominantly emit particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers ("PM2.5"), while fugitive dust consists predominantly of particulate matter less than 10 micrometers ("PMI0"). Historically, health impacts due to particulate matter were regulated through ambient air quality standards for PM10. However, a substantial amount of important new research has been published, documenting new health impacts at much lower concentrations and for different size fractions of particulate matter than was previously known and reflected in ambient air quality standards. (U.S. EP A 04/96;5 U.s. EPA 03/01.6) This new research documents that the inhalation of particulate matter, particularly the smallest particles, causes a variety of health effects, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory (e,g., cough, shortness of breath, . wheezing, bronchitis, asthma attacks) and cardiovascular disease, declines in lung function, changes to lung tissues and structure, altered respiratory defense mechanisms, and cancer, among others. (U.S. EP A 04/96; 61 FR 65638.7) A recent article linked long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution to cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.8 Particulate matter is a noncthreshold pollutant, which means that there is some possibility of an adverse health impact at any concentration. (See American Trucking v. EP A: Unjustified Revival of the Nondelegation Doctrine, 23-SPG Environs Envtl. L & Pol'y J. 17, 26.) This new information led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EP A") and the State of California to propose new ambient air quality standards for PM2.5. These standards are not subsets of the old PM10 standards, but new standards for a separate pollutant with distinguishable impacts. The new annual 5 U.S. Environmental Protectian Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Report EP Aj600jP-95-OOlaF through OOlcF, April 1996. 6 U.s. Environmental Proteetion Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Second External Review Draft, March 2001. 1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Proposed Deeision, Federal Register, v. 61, no. 241, December 13, 1996, pp. 65638-65675. 8 A.A. Pope et al., Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 287, no. 9, pp. 1132-1141. . Page 6 . e . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 PM2.5 standard of 12 J.Ig/ m3was adopted by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") on June 20, 2002 and became effective on June 5,2003, more than two years before the Draft EIR was published. (Voting on the proposed 24--hour-average PM2.5 standard of 25 J.Ig/ m3 has been deferred by CARB. 9) At the same time, California lowered its annual PMlO standard from 30 J.Ig/m2 to 20 J.Ig/m3. (CARB 09/0510.) The Draft EIR also failed to acknowledge this new, lower standard for PMI0. (Draft EIR, Table 4--1.) Consequently, the Draft EIR failed to accurately characterize the regulatory setting for the Project. II.F PM2.5 Emissions Not Analyzed The Draft EIR does not include an analysis of the Project's impacts on ambient air quality resulting from PM2.5 emissions. This is a significant and inexcusable omission because the South Coast Air Basin ("SoCAB"), where the Project is located, frequently does not meet the federal or State ambient air quality standards for PM2.5. The Draft EIR should be revised to include an analysis of PM2.5 emissions from Project construction and operation and resulting impacts on air quality and human health. II.G No Health Risk Assessment Included The Draft EIR identifies several sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project including residential developments surrounding the site; nine primary schools, two middle schools, and three high schools within two miles of the Project site; and two parks within two miles of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4--21.) Yet the Draft EIR contains no health risk assessment analyzing the potential health risks for these sensitive receptors resulting from Project construction or operational emissions. Potentially adverse health impacts likely result from toxic air contaminant emissions, including PM2.5, from diesel combustion engines such as emissions from operation of the emergency generators and the diesel trucks that access the loading dock. The Draft EIR should be revised to include a health risk assessment. 9 California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Draft Proposal to Establish a 24-hour Standard for PM2.5, Public Review Draft, March 12, 2002. 10 California Air Resources Board, Review of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates, http:j j www.arb.ca.govjresearchjaaqsjstd-rsjstd-rs.htm. accessed October 26, 2005. Page 7 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 e III. THE DRAFT Em IMPROPERLY DEFERS DEVELOPMENT OF MITIGATION PLANS AND MITIGATION MEAS URES ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE CEQA generally requires that all mitigation measures be adopted simi.1ltaneously with, or prior to, project approval (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15192). An agency may defer preparation of a plan for mitigation only when the agency commits itseIf to satisfying specified performance standards that will ensure the avoidance of any significant effect from implementation of its mitigation measures. Here, the Draft EIR improperly defers the development of most of its mitigation plans into the future without specifying any performance measures, including: ? Location of the staging area for construction (AQ-l); ? Transportation Demand Management Plan (AQ-2; ? Landscape Plan (AQ4); ? Watering Program (AQ-6); and ? Fugitive Dust Control Program (AQ-7). e Further, several of the mitigation measures (e.g., temporary landscaping, clean-fueled vehicles, construction equipment energy efficiency) required by the Draft EIR are worded ambiguously, e.g., "may require," "when feasible," or "reasonably possible," which renders them unenforceable as a practical matter. (Draft EIR, p. 4-26 to 4-29.) The Draft EIR must specify specific performance measures and reasons for rejection of these measures if found not feasible or appropriate. IV. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED The Draft EIR finds significant impacts after implementation of its proposed mitiga?on measures for ROG and NOx. As discussed below, the Draft EIR's air quality analysis considerably underestimates emissions from construction activities and thereby fails to adequately disclose impacts on air quality from Project construction. If these problems are corrected, emissions of CO and PM10 will likely also exceed applicable significance thresholds. IV.A Incorrect Construction Period Used For Emissions Estimates The Draft EIR indicates that construction of the Project will occur in five phases as summarized in Table 1. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-7 and 3-8.) e Page 8 e Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 Phase IA IB IT ill IV v . Table 1: Projeet Construction Phases Activity ? Grading ? Demolition of existing buildings ? Construction of 3 -story, 60,ooO-square foot medical office building ? Construction of surface parking ? " Construction of l-story, 162,650-square foot main hospital structure ? Construction of 6-story, 122,755-square foot bed tower ? Construction of associated oarkinl!: ? Construction of 5 -story, 122,755-square foot bed tower ? Construction of 4 -story, 80,000-square foot medical office building ? Construction of hospital conneetor ? Construction of l-story, 10,OOO-square foot cancer center ? Construction of associated parking ? Construction of 8,000 square foot fitness center ? Construction of jogging trail Period 10 months 14 months " 12 months (II-V concurrent) Total 36 months Construction of all phases is projected to last a maximum of 36 months if the proposed construction phases (lA, IB, and II-V) are conducted subsequently. In contrast, the Draft EIR's construction emissions estimates were based on a 60-month construction period, starting in January 2006 and tenninating in December 2010. (Draft EIR, p. 4-24, Footnote to Table 4-S and Appx. B, p. 2.) By stretching construction emissions over a period of 60 months rather than the actual proposed 36-month construction period, the Draft EIR considerably underestimates maximum daily emissions and, thus, considerably underestimates air quality impacts from Project construction. In fact, construction of the Project could even be shorter than 36 months because nothing in the Draft EIR's language restricts the Applicant to the staggered construction phasing. (See Comment II.A) If more than the specified construction phases would be conducted concurrently, even greater emissions would occur. I ran the URBEMIS2002 model assuming a construction buildout of 36 months and otherwise accepting all of the Draft EIR's assumptions. Results are included in Exhibit 1. Maximum daily ROG emissions increase considerably from 224Ib/ day to 344lb/ day. Therefore, the Draft EIR failed to disclose the magnitude of impacts associated with Project construction. The Draft EIR should be revised to include a construction schedule showing the projected start of the various _ construction phases and their expected buildout. The Draft EIR's air quality analysis . must be corrected accordmgly. Page 9 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 . IV.B Model Default Values Not Acceptable The Draft EIR's construction emissions estimates largely assume URBEMlS2002 default values, which may substantially underestimate the Project's real emissions. For example, the Draft EIR assumes the default factor for average fugitive dust emissions from grading of 0.11 ton/acre-month. By accepting the default value for average conditions, the Draft EIR fails to evaluate the potential worst case, as is customary for CEQA analyses. The default factor for worst-case condition is 0.42 ton/acre-month. (URBEMIS 04/0511, p. A-7.) Therefore, the Draft EIR may have underestimated potential worst-case conditions during grading of the Project by a factor of almost four. Further, use of this default value is only suggested when no other information is available the area and duration of grading are known. Typically, for a Project of this size, the amount of cut/fill would also be known. (See Comment IT.B.) Another example is the assumption of only 8 hours of construction per day. This assumption directly conflicts with the Draft EIR's statement that" coru;truction activity will occur only between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. (Draft EIR, p.4-53). Although the DEIR makes this statement, it should be noted that the document contains no enforceable e restrictions on the hours of construction per day and, thus, construction may be conducted for more than the 8 hours per day assumed in the air quality section and more than the 12 hours per day claimed in the noise section of the document. An increase of hours of operation from 8 to 12 hours per day or more would considerably increase the potential daily emissions from the Project. The Draft EIR must either contain an enforceable mitigation measure limiting the permissible hours of construction to the assumed 8 hours per day or it must adjust its emissions estimates accordingly. IV.C Fugitive Dust Emissions From Wind Erosion And Trackout Not Included The Draft EIR indicates that grading of the entire 35.31-acre site will occur during Phase lA, exposing those portions of the site, which will be developed in later phases (phase IB through V) to wind erosion for an extended period of time. (Draft EIR, p. 3-7.) The URBEMIS2002 emissions modeling used by the Draft EIR to estimate Project construction emissions includes fugitive dust emissions associated 11 Software User's Guide: URBEMIS 2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, April 2005. . Page 10 . . . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 with grading but does not account for wind erosion12, which can be a substantial " contributor to fugitive dust from construction sites, particularly in summer-dry climates such as the SoCAB. Further, the URBEMlS2002 emissions modeling does not account for mud/ dirt trackout from the site. Consequently, the Draft EIR does not disclose the full impact of fugitive dust PMI0 emissions from Project construction. Fugitive dust emissions due to wind erosion and trackout can be calculated using guidance developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"). (AP-42, Sec. 13.2.513; EPA450/3-88-OO814.) V. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED The Draft EIR's air quality impact analysis considerably underestimates operational emissions from the Project because it omits emission sources, uses inadequate trip generation rates, and fails to include secondary emissions from electricity generation. The Draft EIR finds total operational NOx emissions of 94.5 lb/ day, only 5.5lb/ day below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 100 lb/ day. This NOx significance threshold Will likely be exceeded when taking into account the omitted emission sources, adequate trip generation rates, and secondary emissions from the Project. Similarly, PMI0 emissions, currently estimated at 123 lb / day, may exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 150 lb/ day. As a result, the Draft EIRfails to disclose and adequately mitigate significant impacts due to operational emissions of PM10 and NOx. The Draft EIR should be revised to address these issues and be recirculated for public review. V.A Emissions Sources Omitted The Draft EIR's air quality impact analysis is based on emissions calculated with the URBEMIS2002 model. The model calculates area source emissions from traffic generated by the Project and emissions from natural gas usage, hearths, landscaping, consumer products, and architectural coatings and operational traffic 12 The URBEMIS2002 fugitive dust emissions estimates are based on a methodology developed for the SCAQMD by the Midwest Research Institute ("MRI"). (URBEMIS 04/05, p. A~.) The MRI study Specifically notes that the emission factors for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities do not include wind erosion or mud/dirt lrackout from the site. (MRI, Improvement of Specific Emission Factors, BACM Project No.1, Final Report, March 29, 1996, p. 4-1.) 13 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 13.2.5, Industrial Wind Erosion, January 1995, corrected on April 13, 2001, ,. C. Cowherd, G.E. Muleski, and J.S. Kinsey, Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EP A 450/3-88- 008, U.S. Environmental Proteetion Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988. Page 11 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 e emissions. The model does not include emissions from the helicopter, the three cooling towers, the two emergency generators, and the boilers. The Initial Study concludes that "[a]rea source emissions such as heaters, air condition units and other machines are not considered significant generator [sic] of emissions." (NOP /Initial Study, p. 7.) This conclusion is unsupported in the text of the Draft EIR and appears to be speculation. Even if emissions from these soun:es were individually small, they may be cumulatively considerable and must therefore be included in the Project's emissions analysis. The combined emissions from the helicopter, the diesel generators, and the boilers, even if small, may result in exceedance of the NOx significance threshold. For example, typical NOx emissions for commercial light twin-engine helicopters15 are about 4.0 lb per landing and takeoff ("LTO"), bringing total NOx emissions from the Project within one pound per day of the significance threshold. (OCS 10/()4l6, p.6-17.) V.B Emissions From Natural Gas Usage Not Included . The URBEMlS2002 model assigns gas usage rates to different land uses, e.g., residences, industrial, hotelj motel, and office, to calculate area source emissions from the use of gas-fired boilers, furnaces, hearths, etc. The model does not calculate emissions associated with natural gas usage at hospitals. The Project operates a number of, presumably natural-gas fired, equipment, including the boilers and heating/ air conditioning equipment. Emissions from this equipment, which are likely considerable, are not included in the Draft EIR's area emissions estimates for Project operations presented in Table 4-6. V.C Incorrect Target Year Results In Underestimate Of Vehicle Emissions The Draft EIR assumes 2010 as the target year for operational traffic emissions. As discussed in Comment IV.A, construction is assumed to start in January 2006 with a 36 month construction period. Therefore, the target year for 15 The noise analysis stated that the exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been confirmed but that the Bellm has been identified as a model that could potentially be used. The Bellm, a frequently used helicopter model for emergency transports, is a conunerciallight twin- engine helicopter. 16 R Billings and D. Wilson, Data Quality Control and Emissions Inventories of OCS Oil and Gas Production Activities in the Breton Area of the Gulf of Mexico, Final Report, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, MMS 2004-071, October 2004. . Page 12 e Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005 operational emissions should be 2009, not 2010. Because vehicular emissions are assumed to decrease with every year, the calculated operational emissions for 2010 underestimate actual emissions at Project buildout, i.e. in 2009. I ran URBEMIS2002 for target year 2009 and otherwise assuming all of the Draft EIR's assumptions. Results are included as Exhibit 1. Emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO in 2009 are about 10% higher than for target year 2010. This results in NOx emissions exceeding the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance threshold. This is a significant impact that was not disclosed in the Draft EIR. V.D Traffic Emissions Underestimated . The Draft EIR's URBEMIS2002 air quality analysis uses default trip lengths to estimate emissions from Project-related traffic. These default trip lengths do not apply to traffic associated with a regional hospital. Trips associated with a regional hospital are typically longer and hence traffic emissions attributable to the Project are higher. In addition, an independent review of the Draft EIR's traffic analysis found a considerable underestimate of traffic generated by the Project, which is not reflected in the URBEMIS2002 default assumptions for traffic. (See Brohard 10/0517.) Consequently, emissions associated with Project traffic are also underestimated. The Draft EIR's emissions estimates for Project traffic must be modified to reflect the Project's actual traffic characteristics. V.E Secondary Emissions From Electricity Generation Not Included CEQA requires that an EIR identify direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a).) The Project will require a substantial amount of electricity, which generates so-called indirect or secondary emissions. The Draft EIR mentions that air pollutant emissions will be generated due to the consumption of electricity and states that these regional emissions were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. (Draft EIR, p. 4-24.) Yet the Draft EIR fails to account for these emissions in its presentation of regional emissions associated with the operational phase of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-25, Table 4-6.) A considerable share of the electricity delivered to the SoCAB is generated by coal-fired power plants, which generate substantial particulate matter and SOz . 17 Tom Brohard, Brohard and Associates, Letter to Gloria Smith, Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo, Re: Review of Traffic Portions of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project Focused Environmental Impact Report in the City of Temecula, October 26,2005. Page 13 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 . emissions. The Draft EIR should be revised to include emissions from electricity generation. VI. INCREASED OZONE FORMATION DUE TO URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT IS NOT ANALYZED The Project would develop 35.31 acres of largely open grass-covered land. The Draft EIR states that lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape areas.IS (Draft EIR, pp. 3-3 and 3-7.) The Project would add several buildings, parking lots, roads, and roofs, thus increasing the amount of existing blacktop. Black stirfaces absorb about 85% to 95% of the sunlight that falls on them, becoming one of the hottest surfaces in urban areas. The hot surfaces of pavement and similarly dark roofs quickly warm the air over urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." On a clear summer afternoon, the air temperature in urban areas can be 2 F to 9 F hotter than the surrounding rural area. The elevated temperature increases cooling energy demand, accelerates the rate of smog production, and increases evaporative losses of organic compounds from gasoline tanks of vehicles parked over the hot surfaces. Conversion of open, grass-covered land to build-out areas would increase local ambient temperatures, thereby contributing to the urban heat island effect and increasing the local formation of ozone. Thus, the urban heat island affect would exacerbate existing exceedances of the ozone standards in the Project vicinity. The SoCAB is not in compliance with either federal or State ozone standards. Thus, the Project would directly contribute to existing exceedances of the federal and State ozone standards, which is a significant impact. (See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 CalApp.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650].) This is a significant impact that was not discussed in the Draft EIR and is feasible to mitigate as discussed in Comment VII.B.3. e VII. ADDmONAL MITIGATION IS FEASIBLE CEQA section 21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures in order to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project. (See Pub. Res. Code fi21081(a); CEQA Guidelines ~15370.) To implement this requirement, an EIR must set forth mitigation measures that decisionmakers can adopt at the findings stage of the process. (CEQA " Guidelines ~15126(c).) For each significant effect, the ElR must identify specific 18 The Site Plan provided in the Draft EIR suggests a considerably larger percentage of buildings and parking spaces and lower percentage of landscaped areas. (Draft EIR p. 3-5, Figure 3 -2.) e Page 14 e . . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 mitigation measures. Where several potential mitigation measures are available, each should be discussed separately and the reasons for choosing one over the other should be stated. (CEQA Guidelines ~15126(c).) Mitigation measures should be capable of "avoiding the impact altogether," "minimizing impacts," "rectifying the impact," or "reducing the impact." (CEQA Guidelines ~15370.) By the Draft EIR's own admission of "significant unavoidable impacts" and as demonstrated in the comments above, impacts from construction and operation of the Project remain significant after implementation of the Draft EIR's proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, the City must impose all feasible mitigation to mitigate these significant impacts, which it did not. The. comments below discuss the specific inadequacies of the Draft EIR's proposed mitigation program and propose mitigation measures that should be implemented to lessen or eliminate the significant adverse effects of Project construction and operation. VII.A Additional Feasible Construction Mitigation The Draft EIR finds significant and unavoidable NOx emissions from the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) As discussed in Comment N, construction emissions are considerably underestimated, likely resulting in significant and unmitigated ROC, CO, and PMlO emissions beyond what is reported by the Draft ElR. As discussed below, there are numerous other relevant and reasonable fugitive dust and diesel exhaust mitigation measures contained in the CEQA guidelines and rules of air districts and other agencies that should also be required for this Project to mitigate its significant construction impacts. VII.A.l Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures Several agencies have conducted comprehensive studies of fugitive dust control measures to bring their region into compliance with national ambient air quality standards on PMIO. For example, the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") has sponsored research, passed regulations (e.g., Rule 40319), and published guidelines that identify best management practices for controlling fugitive dusts at construction sites. The Rule 403 Implementation Handbook2o contains a comprehensive list of such measures, which should be incorporated into the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. (See Draft EIR, p. 4-27, Mitigation Measure ,. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 403, Fugitive Dust and Proposed Rule 1186, PMI0 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations, February 14, 1997. 20 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, January 1999. Page 15 "Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 AQ-7.) Clark County, Nevada, has also sponsored research, passed regulations (Rule 94), and published best management practices for controlling fugitive dust from construction activities.21 Clark County's Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook contains a comprehensive list of best management practices.22 Similarly, Arizona has developed guidance to control fugitive PMI0 emissions.23 Several of the measures included in these agency guidelines are feasible and therefore should be considered for adoption here under CEQA Guidelines fi~15126.4, 15091. Examples of such feasible mitigation measures are listed below: ? During clearing and grubbing, prewet surface soils where equipment will be operated; for areas without continuing construction, maintain live perennial vegetation and desert pavement; stabilize surface soil with dust palliative unless inunediate construction is to continue; and use water or dust palliative to form crust on soil inunediately following clearing/ grubbing. (COID) ? Grade each phase separately, timed to coincide with construction phase or grade entire project, but apply chemical stabilizers or ground cover to graded areas where construction phase begins more than 60 days after grading phase ends. (Rule 403 Handbook) ? During initial grading, earth moving, or site preparation, projects 5 acres or greater may be required to construct a paved (or dust palliative treated) apron, at least 100 ft in length, onto the project site from the adjacent site if applicable. (BCAQMD) ? During cut and fill activities, prewater with sprinklers or wobblers to allow time for penetration; prewater with water trucks or water pulls to allow time for penetration; dig a test hole to depth of cut to determine if soils are moist at depth and continue to prewater if not moist to depth of "cut; use water truck/ pull to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent cuts; and apply water or dust palliative to form crust on soil following fill and compaction. (CCHD) e e 21 P.M. Fransioli, PMI0 Emissions Control Research Sponsored by Clark County, Nevada, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, Orlando, FL, June 24-28, 2001. 22 Oark County Department of Air Quality Management, Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook, March 18, 2003. 23 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Exceptional at\.d Natural Events Policy . PMI0 Best Available Control Measures, June 5, 2001. Page 16 . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 . ? For backfillirlg during earthmoving operations, water backfill material or apply dust palliative to maintain material moisture or to form crust when not actively handling; cover or enclose backfill material when not actively handling; mix backfill soil with water prior to moving; dedicate water truck or large hose to backfilling equipment and apply water as needed; water to form crust on soil immediately following backfilling; and empty loader bucket slowly; minimize drop height from loader bucket. (CCHD)24 ? For large tracts of disturbed land, prevent access by fencing, ditches, vegetation, berms, or other barriers; install perimeter wind barriers 3 to 5 feet high with low porosity; plant perimeter vegetation early; and for long-term stabilization, stabilize disturbed soil with dust palliative or vegetation or pave or apply surface rock. (CCHD) ? Barriers with SO percent or less porosity located adjacent to roadways to reduce windblown material leaving a site. (Rule 403 Handbook) ? In staging areas, limit size of area; apply water to surface soils where support equipment and vehicles are operated; limit vehicle speeds to 15 mph; and limit ingress and egress points. (CCHD) ? Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. (SJVUAPCD, ADEQ) ? For stockpiles, maintain at optimum moisture content; remove material from downwind side; avoid steep sides or faces; and stabilize material following stockpile-related activity. (CCHD) ? When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. (BAAQMD, SJVUAPCD, Rule 403 Handbook, ADEQ SLOCAPCD) ? Where feasible, use bedliners in bottom-dumping haul vehicles. (Rule 403 Handbook) , ? Empty loader bucket slowly and minimize drop height from loader bucket. (CCHD) . 24 The following acronyms are used in this listing of mitigation measures: ADEQ = Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BCAQMD = Butte County Air Quality Management District; CCHD = Clark County (Nevada) Health District; Ml}UAPCD = Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; SBCAPCD = Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District; SJVUAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; SLOCAPCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. Page 17 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 . ? Clean wheels and undercarriage of haul trucks prior to leaving construction site. (CCHD) ? Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of mud on to public roads. (SBCAPCD) ? Install and maintain trackout control devices in effective condition at all access points where paved and unpaved access or travel routes intersect. (CCHD) ? All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. (SLOCAPCD) ? Pave all roads on construction sites. (MBUAPCD) "? To prevent trackout, pave construction roadways as early as possible; install gravel pads; install wheel shakers or wheel washers, and limit site access. (CCHD, SLOCAPCD) ? While clearing forms, use single stage pours where allowed; use water spray to clear forms; use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; use _ industrial shop vacuum to clear forms; and avoid use of high pressure air" . to blow soil and debris from the form. (CCHD) ? Limit fugitive dust sources to 20 percent opacity. (ADEQ) ? Require a dust control plan for earthmoving operations. (ADEQ) ? Prior to land use clearance, the applicant shall include, as a note on a separate informational sheet to be recorded with map, these dust control requirements. All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD) ? The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD) ? "Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hrs. (BCAQMD, CCHD) While portions of some of these measures are included in the mitigation measures imposed by the Draft EIR, the above measures are far more protective and should all be required in the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. All of these measures are feasible and various combinations of them are routinely required elsewhere to reduce fugitive PM10 emissions. See, for example, the fugitive dust . Page 18 . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 control program for the Big Dig (Kasprak and Stakutis 200OZS), for the El ToroReuse Draft ElR26, and for the Padres Ballpark Final EIR27. VII.A.2 Diesel Exhaust Mitigation Measures There are a number of additional mitigation measures that are routinely required as CEQA mitigation by air districts and other agencies in California for construction projects, (e.g., the mitigation programs routinely implemented by the SMAQMD and California Energy Commission ("CEC") decisions), including: " ? ? ? ? ? ? . ? ? ? ? ? Limiting the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/ or the amount of equipment in use. (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 53.) Conversion to cleaner engines; Use of cleaner (reduced suIfur) fuel; Add-on control devices, e.g., particulate traps, catalytic oxidizers; Buffer zone between facility and sensitive receptors; Installation of high pressure injectors on diesel construction equipment; Restricting engine size of construction equipment to the minimum practical size; Electrification of construction equipment; Substitution of gasoline-powered for diesel-powered construction equipment; Use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, using, e.g., compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel; Implementation of activity management techniques including a) development of a comprehensive construction management plan 25 A. Kasprak and P.A. Stakutis, A Comprehensive Air Quality Control Program for a Large Roadway Tunnel Projeet, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 93'd Annual Conference, June 18-22, 2000. 26 County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS El Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County International Airport, Draft Supplemental Analysis, Volume 1, April 2001, pp. 2-121 to 2-123, 27 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Centre City Redevelopment Projeet and Addressing the Centre City Community Plan and Related Documents for the Proposed Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projeets, and Associated Plan Amendments, V. IV. Responses to Comments, September 13, 1999, pp. IV-254 to iV-256. . Page 19 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005 e designed to minimize the number of large construction equipment operating during any given time period; b) scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions; c) limitation of the length of construction work-day period; and d) phasing of construction activities; ? Installation of catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment, if feasible; ? Minimization of construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and by providing for lunch onsite; ? Lengthening of construction period during smog season (May through October), so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time; ? Utilization of new technologies to control ozone precursor emissions as they become available and feasible; ? Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators; and ? Emission offsets if ROG or NOx emissions exceed 6.0 tons/ quarter. . The following discusses the use and feasibility of construction equipment certified by CARB, post-combustion controls, and the use of PuriNOx, an alternative diesel formulation. VILA.2.a CARB-certified Construction Equipment Both the u.s. EP A and CARB have established emission limits on new off-road engines. CARB-certified off-road engines are engines that are 3 years old or less at the time of use and which comply with these new low emission limits. This equipment is widely available in the construction fleet. The use of CARB-certified equipment should be required for this Project. For example, the SMAQMD and other agencies require the use of at least 20 percent CARB-certified off-road engines in the mix of construction equipment operating on-site, or alternatively, setting a NOx, ROG, and/ or PM10 emission reduction goal for the construction fleet. A similar measure has been adopted by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Conunission ("TNRCC") for the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston areas. (Rennie et al. 2001.28) The Arizona Department 28 S.G. Rennie, L. Fiffick, D. Huckabay, and B. Ubanwa, Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Retrofit Programs as a Part of Houston SIP, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 94th Annual a Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001. . Page 20 . . . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 of Environmental Quality (" ADEQ") has also recommended this measure to address the air quality problems in the Phoenix area. (ADEQ 11/9/00, pp. 19-24.) VII.A.2.b Post-combustion Controls Post-combustion controls, such as oxidation catalysts and particulate filters, are devices that are installed downstream of the engine on the tailpipe to treat the exhaust. These devices are now widely used on construction equipment and are capable of removing over 90% of the PM10, CO, and ROG from engine exhaust, depending on the fuel and specific engine. The most common and widely used post- combustion control devices are particulate traps (i.e., soot filters), oxidation catalysts, and combinations thereof. The mimy variants of these devices have recently been identified, evaluated, and comprehensively reviewed by CARB29 and others.30 These devices are COInrnonIy required as mitigation for construction emissions, which are similar to Project operations. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority ("MTA") implemented a voluntary program in the fall of 1998 which resulted in retrofitting 70 pieces of construction equipment with oxidation catalysts (Kasprak et al. 200131) at the "Big Dig," the massive, 5-year, $10 billion-plus Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston's North End and one of the largest infrastructure construction projects in the country. These controls have also been widely required to mitigate construction emissions in California. The CEc, which follows a CEQA-equivalent process in licensing of new power plants larger than 50 megawatts ("MW"), has required these devices on many projects. The Sunrise Power Project was recently constructed using this equipment.32 No problems were encountered. Several other 500+MW power plants have been licensed and constructed successfully using these controls, 29 California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000; California Air Resources Board, Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines, October 2000. 30 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, Demonstration of Advanced Emission Control Teclmologies Enabling Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty Engines to Achieve Low Emission Levels, Final Report, June 1999. 31 A. Kasprak, G. Schattanek, and P.K. Wan, Emission Reduction Retrofit Program for Construction Equipment of the Central Artery jTunnel Projeet, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001. Also see: www.epa.govjOMSjretrofitjdocumentsjbigdig..case_Ol.htm. accessed October 26, 2005. 32 California Energy Commission, Conunission Decision, Sunrise Power Project, December 2000, Condition AQ-C3, p. 120. Page 21 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005 . including High Deser@3, Elk Hills34, Pastoria35, Western Midway-Sunse@6,Mountain View37, and Contra Costa38, among others. (All of the CEC siting decisions are posted at www.energy.ca.gov under the name of the individual facility.) Post-combustion controls have also been required as conventional CEQA mitigation in EIRs. The El Toro Reuse Draft EIR39, page 2-124, AQ-llk and AQ-lll, required the use of particulate traps with a minimum 80% PM10 efficiency and selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") or comparable technology with a minimum 70% NOx reduction on all off-road construction equipment. The Stanford University General Use Permit Application Draft EIR 40, page 4.11-10, AQ-l, required a range of measures to minimize diesel engine exhaust, including catalytic converters and particulate traps. The City of San Diego in the Padres Ballpark Final EIR41 required the control of 95% of engine exhaust emissions, using, among others, oxidation catalysts, particulate filters, and "Blue Sky" low-emission engines. Similarly, .the Port of Oakland required the use of new engines or post-combustion controls on trucks serving its Vision 2000 expansion project. The Port's air quality mitigation program is now partially in place and has been very successful in reducing emissions.42 e 33 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, High Desert Power Project, May 2000, Condition AQ-3(o), p. 107. 34 California Energy C~mmission, Commission Decision, Elk Hills Power Project,. December 2000, Condition AQ-C2(3), p. 123. 35 California Energy Commission, Commission De<:ision, Pastoria Energy Facility, Deeember 2000, Condition AQ-C3, p. 108. 36 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Western Midway Sunset Power Project, March 2001, Condition AQ-C2, p. 114. 37 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Mountain View Power Projeet, March 2001, Condition AQ-C2, p. 34. 38 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Projeet, May 2001, Condition AQC-2, p. 12. 39 County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report, No, 573 for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS El Toro and the Airport SY8tem Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County International Airport, April 2001. 40 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR Stanford University Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit Application, June 23, 2000. 41 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Ballpark and AnciIlary Development Projeets, and Associated Plan Amendments, September 13, 1999 and Draft Subsequent EIR, May 12, 1999, , page N -262, 18.A.89. 42 Port of Oakland, Summary Report #5, Vision 2000 Air Quality Mitigation Program, February 2002. . Page 22 e . . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005 All of these post-combustion controls are feasible for construction of this Project. Therefore, the Draft EIR should be revised be prepared requiring the use of post-combustion controls on off-road equipment specifying target control levels. VII.A.2.c PuriNOx Alternate diesel fuels exist that achieve PM10 and NOx reductions. PuriNOx is an alternative diesel formulation that was verified by CARB on January 31, 200143 as achieving a 14% reduction in NOx and a 63 % reduction in PM10 compared to CARB diesel. It can be used in any direct-injection. heavy-duty compression ignition engine and is compatible with existing engines and existing storage, distribution, and vehicle fueling facilities. Operational experience indicates little or no difference in performance and startup time, no discernable operational differences, no increased engine noise, and significantly reduced visible smoke. (Hagstrand 6/0444.) This fuel has been successfully used in heavy-duty off-road and on-road equipment, including by the Tri -Delta Transit Authority fleet in Contra Costa County, by the County of Sacramento at the Keifer Landfill and North Transfer station, in off-road construction equipment at very large residential construction projects in Sacramento, in truck fleets operated by Pacific Cement in San Francisco and Ramos Oil in Dixon, in yard hostlers at the Port of Long Beach, in off-road " . equipment operated by Hanson Aggregate in San Francisco, and in yard haulers at the Port of Houston. (Howes 4/0()45 and Hagstrand 6/04.) Six yard tractors have been operating on PuriNOx at the Port of Houston since April 2000. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") has also approved PuriNOx fuel for funding under Texas Senate BillS. PuriNOx fuel is available from fuel distributor Chevron Texaco in Los Angeles and is competitively priced at a surcharge over regular diesel of about 10 cents per gallon.46 It has been required as mitigation for construction exhaust emission impacts. For example, the NASA Ames Development Plan Draft 43 Letter from Dean C. Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, to Thomas J. Sheahan, Lubrizol, Verification of Lubrizol Corp. PuriNOx Fuel, January 31, 2001, http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/altdiesel/altdiese1.htm. accessed June 18, 2004. 44 Personal communication, Petra Pless/Phyllis Fox with Hep Hepner, Ramos Oil Co., Dixon; CA, "(916-371-3289, ext. 242) and Bill Hagstrand, Lubrizol (440-347-6592), March and June 2004. 45 P. Howes, An Evaluation of the Effects of PuriNOxTM on Exhaust Emis5ions from Yard Haulers at the Port of Houston, April 2000. 46 Personal communication, Petra Pless with Bill Hagstrand, Lubrizol (440-347-6592), June 21, 2004. Page 23 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 . Environmental Impact Statement,47 page 4.4-34, requires "where reasonable and feasible, use alternative diesel fuels. See also construction exhaust mitigation in the Bickford Ranch Final EIR, page 1-24, requiring 10% to 20% NOx emission reductions, to be achieved by both engine selection and fuel selection. ("includes the use of emulsified fuel in non-certified engines...".) VII.B Additional Feasible Operational Mitigation The Draft EIR concludes that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, emissions of CO and ROG from operation of the hospital and other on-site facilities will remain significant. The Draft EIR states that "[e]ven with measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance" and concludes that "[l]ong-terrn air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable." (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) Yet, the Draft EIR imposes a total of only five mitigation measures that address operational emissions, specifically, AQ-2 incorporation and encouragement of Transportation Demand Management techniques ("roM"); AQ-3 incorporation of energy efficiency standards for buildings; AQ-4 submission of a landscape plan; AQ-16 enclosure and coVer of refuse areas; and AQ-17 promotion of alternative transportation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-26 through 4-28.) e By the Draft EIR's own admission, these mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce the significant impacts from operational emissions to less than significance for CO and ROG, resulting in significant unmitigated impacts from Project " operational emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) Further, as discussed in Comment V, the Draft EIR considerably underestimates Project operational emissions of PMI0 and NOx, which likely also exceed the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance thresholds. The Draft EIR does not contain any discussion why no additional mitigation measures were considered to reduce the Project's significant impacts on air quality. As discussed below, numerous other mitigation measures exist that are routinely required as CEQA mitigation and should have been required for the Project. For example, the Initial Study for the Project recommends the following two mitigation measures for emissions from Project operations that were not incorporated into the Draft EIR: 47 NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, November 2001. e Page 24 . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 ? Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline- powered engines where feasible; and ? Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements. (NOP /Initial Study, pp. 9-11.) VII.B.l Operational Traffic Mitigation Measures The following traffic mitigation measures are routinely required elsewhere to mitigate significant impacts from a project and should be required to mitigate the Project's significant NOx, ROG, and PMI0 impacts. e ? Encourage carpooljvanpool program; ? Provide on-site shops and services for employees, such as cafeteria, bank/AIM, dry cleaners, convenience market, etc.; ? Provide on-site child care or contribute to off-site child care within walking distance; ? Provide preferential parking for carpooljvanpool vehicles; ? Provide secure, weather-protected bicycle parking for employees; ? Provide direct safe, direct bicycle access to adjacent bicycle routes; ? Provide showers and lockers for employees bicycling or walking to work; ? Short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other nOfrCommute trips; ? Provide neighborhood-servicing shops and services within '/2 mile of residential arEas; ? Connect bicycle lanes/paths to city-wide network; . "? Design and locate buildings to facilitate transit access, e.g., locate building entrances near transit stops, eliminate building setbacks, etc.; ? Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc.; ? Provide shuttle service to food service establishments/ commercial areas; ? Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multirnodal centers; ? Implement parking fee for single-occupancy vehicle commuters; ? Implement parking cash-out program for non-driving employees; Page 25 Pless; Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 . ? Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and adjacent development; ? Implement compressed work week schedule; ? Implement home-based telecommuting program; ? Provide electric vehicle ("EV") and compressed natural gas ("CNG") vehicles in vehicle fleets; ? Install EV charging facilities; ? Install CNG fueling facility; ? Provide preferential parking locations for EVs and CNG vehicles; and ? Charge reduced or no parking fee for EVs and CNG vehicles; The Lent Ranch Final EIR48, for example, requires most of these measures. The NASA Ames Development Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement" ("EIS")49 would implement an aggressive transportation demand management program ("TDM") to reduce trip generation by at least 22 percent. The Stanford University Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit Draft EIR 50 adopts all applicable Bay Area TDMs. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR51 requires that emissions be reduced by 40% by implementing many of these measures. The Old Greenwood Planned Development Draft EIR52 requires, among others, paying an air quality mitigation fee to offset PMI0 emissions from vehicle exhaust and re- entrained road dust to zero. Therefore, the above-listed measures should be assumed feasible unless otherwise demonstrated, and used by this Project to reduce traffic emissions to a less than significant level. e 4. Oty of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report, for example Table 4.3-21, page 3.0-96, and Table 12-2, October 2000. 49 NASA Ames Research Center~ NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, pp. 0-11 to 0-16, November 2001. 50 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Stanford University Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit Application, Table 4.11-6, June 23, 2000. 51 County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Speeific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Section 8.3.2 and 8.4, November 13, 2000. S2 City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned Development, pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002. e Page 26 . . . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 VII.B.2 Operational Area Mitigation Measures The City's General Plan contains the following two operational mitigation . measures that are not required by the Draft EIR: ? Optimize building sites and orientation to take advantage of shading and windbreak trees and reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling; and ? Design buildings to optimize natural lighting, provide for task lighting, and specific high-efficiency electric lighting. (General Plan, p. AQ-8.) In addition to the mitigation measures proposed by the Draft EIR and contained in the City's General Plan, operational area emissions can also be mitigated by controlling other sources of emissions from the Project, including exhaust emissions from landscaping equipment, emissions from natural gas combustion for heating/ air-conditioning, increased ozone production from the heat .island effect (see Comment VI), and indirect emissions from electricity generation (see Comment V.E). In addition, the CEQA Guidelines of other air districts identify numerous other feasible measures for commercialjindustrial operations. Some of these additional measures, which are routinely required as mitigation in other EIRs53 include: ? Use electric lawn and garden equipment for landscaping (BAAQMD); ? Use electrically or CNG-powered specialty equipment, e.g., utility carts (BAAQMD); ? Use propane-powered specialty equipment, e.g., forklifts, utility carts, etc. . (BAAQMD); ? . Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements (SLOAPCD54, SCAQMD55); ; 53 For example: City of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Table 4.3-5, p. 3.0-96, October 2000; County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, pp. 8-20 to 8-22, November 13, 2000; Sacramento County, East Franklin Speeific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report, Table ES-1; and Appendix D, February 2000; City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned Development, pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002. 54 San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August 1997. 55 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. Page 27 Pless, Comments On T emecula Regional Hospital Draft EnvironmenW Impact Report, October 27, 2005 . ? Orient buildings to maximize standard heating and cooling (SLOAPCD) and include passive solar design, e.g., day-lighting (SCAQMD, SBAPCD56, BCAQMD57); ? Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD); ? Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD); ? Use energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioning (SCAQMD, BCAQMD); ? Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD) and built-in energy-efficient appliances (SLOAPCD); ? Use double-paned windows (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD); ? Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD); ? Use light-colored roof materials (SCAQMD) and paint (SBAPCD) to reflect heat; (see Comment VILB.3.b) e ? Install solar cooling/heating (SBAPCD); ? Install solar water heater for at least 25% of the building floor area (BCAQMD); ? Substitute materials, e,g" use water-based paint (SCAQMD); ? Modify manufacturing processes, e.g., reduce process stages, closed loop- systems, materials recycling (SCAQMD); ? Install resource recovery systems that redirect chemicals to new production processes (SCAQMD); ? Use solar or low-emission water heaters (SCAQMD); ? Use centralized water-heating systems (SCAQMD, VCAPCD58); ? Use concrete or other non-pollutant materials for parking lots instead of asphalt (SBAPCD); 56 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, September 1997. 57 Butte County Air Quality Management District, Jndireet Source Review Guidelines, March 1997. 5. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix G-94, Guideline. for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, October 1989. . Page 28 . Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 ? Pay an air quality mitigation fee; ? Secure emission offsets; ? Landscape with drought-resistant species, and use groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection; ? Provide electric maintenance equipment; ? Use ozone-def,truction catalyst on air condition systems; and ? Reduce standard paving by 20%. Further, some air districts recommend that large projects that cannot be fully mitigated with on-site measures, should implement off-site mitigation measures, for example: ? ? ? e ? ? ? ? ? Retrofit existing homes and businesses in the project area with approved energy conservation devices (SWAPCD); Replace/ repower schoolj transit bus with cleaner vehicles (SLOAPCD); Construct satellite work stations (SLOAPCD); Fund a program to buy and scrap older, high-emisskm vehicles (SLOAPCD); Contribute to an off-site TDM fund (VCAPCD); Repair smog-check waived vehicles (SLOAPCD); Introduce electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program (SLOAPCD); <lud Retrofit/ purchase clean heavy-duty trucks, construction equipment, diesel locomotives, and marine vessels (SLOAPCD). VII.B.3 Mitigation For Urban Heat Island Effect A number of the above discussed mitigation measures will reduce the urban heat island effect. The feasibility of two of these measures, reduction of standard paving by 20% and use of Energy Star roof products, are discussed in the following . comments in more detail. VII.B.3.a Reduction Of Standard Paving By 20% The heat island effect can be mitigated by reflecting the sunlight off the pavement before it heats up through use of lighter-colored, reflective pavement materials. These materials reduce the urban heat island effect, reducing the formation of ozone, arid reducing evaporative emissions from vehicles that park on . Page 29. Pless, Comments On Temecula Jl.egional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 . and use the pavement, thus reducing traffic emissions. This can be accomplished by using grass paving or reflective surfaces on unshaded parking lots, driveways, and fire lanes to reduce standard paving by 20%. This measure is widely used, technically feasible, provides air quality benefits, and is economic. There are a large number of options that can be used to comply with this measure, ranging from porous block pavement systems to conventional asphalt pavements using light aggregate to conventional concrete pavements. Some are comparable in cost to conventional pavements and have added benefits besides reducing air quality impacts. VII.B.3.b Use Of Energy Star Roof Products Most commercial and residential buildings have dark roofs. Dark roofs absorb 80% to 90% of the incident sunlight, heating the roof and plenum space. Because the air distribution system is typically installed in the plenum space between the roof deck and the dropped ceiling over the finished interior space, this raises the summertime cooling demand. In addition, heating the roof heats the air that passes over the roof. Thus, the entire region around a dark roof becomes warmer, increasing the formation of ozone. e As discussed above, dark roofs (and parking lots) quickly warm the air over urban areas, leading to the creation of suriuner urban "heat islands." The additional air conditioning demand created by this temperature effect is responsible for 5% to 10% of urban peak electric demand. The increased power demand leads to higher emissions from power plants. This increase in temperature causes a 10% to 20% increase in urban ozone, and in some cases, generates as much ozone as all on-road motor vehicles.59 Measures to reverse the heat island effect include reflective roofs and pavements. Intercepting the sunlight before it heats a building keeps its surface cooler and reduces the heat flow into the building. This reduces the demand for air conditioning. This can be accomplished by using light-colored, reflective roofs. A light-colored roof can reduce the amount of energy needed for cooling by 20% to 70%, depending on the amount of insulation under the roof and design of the air ducting system. This is achieved by reflecting most of the energy, rather than absorbing it. The difference between the roof surface and ambient air temperatures may be as high as 90 F, while forreflective roofs, the difference is only about 18F. 59 Akbari H, Cool Roofs Save Energy, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, PI. 1, 1998; Taha H, Modeling the Impacts of Large-Scale Albedo Changes on Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin, Atmospheric Environment, v. 31, no. 11, 1997, pp.1667-1676. . Page 30 . . . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005 This reduces peak cooling demand, cooling costs, the size of the HV AC system, and the rating and amount of insulation required in a building, and increases the lifetime of the roof. This also reduces air pollution by reducing the amount of external power that must be produced and the amount of ambient ozone that is formed in the vicinity of the development from the heat island effect. Normal asphalt-based roofing products typically have a reflectivity of 10% to 20%. Energy Star-labeled roof products are roofing products certified to achieve at least 65% reflectivity and to maintain a reflectivity of 50% under normal conditions for 3 years after installation The program is sponsored by the U.S. EP A and the Department of Energy. There are currently over 115 manufacturers enrolled in the program. Reflective roofing is also recognized as an acceptable design option in the latest edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers (U ASHRAE") Standards 90.160 and 90.2 on energy-efficient buildings. Energy Star roof products are economical to apply and maintain and can be cheaper than or comparable to conventional roofing products, which cost from $1.50 to $2.50 per square foot installed.61 Cool roofs come in a variety of styles, including reflective coatings, reflective membranes, or metal roofs made of galvanized or other coated metal. Coatings have a consistency of thick paint and cost from $0.75 to $1.50 per square foot installed. Membranes are single-ply, pre-fabricated sheets applied in a single layer, typically made of PVC (poly vinyl chloride), TPO (tripolymer olefin), Hypalon, or CPA (copolymer alloy) and cost from $1.50 to $3.00 per square foot. A reflective roof can be installed or applied over almost any type of roof material, including directly on a plywood deck in place of asphalt. The performance of reflective roofing materials has been extensively documented. At a single family residence in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity of the roof from 18% to 79% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy use over the June to October period by 66% and the peak power by 17%. At a one-story school in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity of the roof from 8% to 68% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy use over the June to October period by 34% and peak power by 32%.62 In another Sacramento study, 60 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Standard 90.1-1999. 61 R.S. Mearis, Square Foot Costs, 21" Ed., 2000, Division 5, Roofing. 62 H. Akbari, S. Bretz, D. Kurn, and J. Hanford, Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of High- Albedo Roofs, Energy and Buildings, v. 25, 1997, pp. 117-126, Page 31 Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005 . daily air conditioning savings of 17%,26%, and 39% were documented in an office, museum, and hospice with high reflectivity roofs.63 At a one-story, 31,700-square foot Kaiser medical office building in Davis, increasing the reflectivity of an R-19 flat roof from 24% to 60% reduced summertime average weekday air conditioning by 18%. At another one-story, 23,800-square foot Kaiser medical office building in Gilroy, increasing the reflectivity of an R-7 flat roof from 25% to 65% reduced the summertime average weekday air conditioning by 13 %. At a 33,OOO-square foot drug store in San Jose, increasing the reflectivity of a foil barrier flat roof from 18% to 28% reduced the summertime average daytime air condition by 2%.64 Reflective coatings reduced cooling energy costs by 12% to 18% in two other commercial buildings in California.65 The reflectivity of a conventional unsurfaced galvanized corrugated metal roof of seven retail stores in a strip mall in Florida was increased from 29% to 75% with a white coating. This reduced the summer space cooling energy use by 25%, with a range in savings of 13% to 48%, depending on the temperature maintained in the shops. Those maintaining the lowest interior temperatures saved the least on a percentage basis. The cost of the application was $0.53/ft2 with a payback period of about 9 years.66 In nine Florida homes, daily air . conditioning energy use was reduced by 2% to 43% and peak demand was reduced . by an average of 22 %. The amount of energy savings was inversely correlated with the amount of ceiling insulation and duct system location, with the largest savings in poorly insulated homes and those with duct systems in the attic space and smaller savings in well-insulated homes.67 A high-reflective coatillg on an office building in Mississippi reduced cooling energy demands by 22%.68 In addition to field studies, 63 E. W. Hildebrandt, W. Bos, and R. Moore, Assessing the Impacts of White Roofs on Building Energy Loads, ASHRAE Teelmical Data Bulletin, v. .14, no. 2, 1998. 64 H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and S. Konopacki, Measured Energy Savings of Lighl-Colored Roofs: Results from Three California Demonstration Sites, Proceedings of the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 3, no. 1,1998. 65 S. Konopacki, H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and L. Rainer, Demonstration of Energy Savings of Cool Roofs, LBNLReport40673, 1998. 66 D. Parker,], Sonne, and]. Sherwin, Demonstration of Cooling Savings of Light Colored Roof Surfacing in Florida Commercial Buildings: Retail Strip Mall, Florida Solar Energy Center Report FSEC-CR-964-97, 1997; www.fsee.ucf.edujBldgjpubsonline.htm. 67 D.S. Parker and others, Measured and Simulated Performance of Refleetive Roofing Systems in Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Proceedings (Winter Meeting), Atlanta, GA, 1998; www.fsee.ucf.edujBldgjpubsonline.htm. 68 C. Boutwell and Y. Salinas, Building for the Future - Phase I: An Energy Saving Materials Research . Projeet, Mississippi Power Co., Rohm and Haas Co and the University of Mississippi, 1986. Page 32 . e . Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005 computer simulations of reflective roofs have documented cooling energy savings in residential and commercial buildings.69 Cool roofs have been widely used in California, including on the American Airline airport terminal in San Jose, on control towers at the Stockton and Palmdale airports, at the 300,000-square foot Honda distribution warehouse in Stockton, the 200,000-square foot JC Penny warehouse in Buena Park, and numerous buildings in Silicon Valley. Thus, this measure would save a substantial amount of money over the life of the Project and would cost no more than a standard roof. Further, it would reduce pollution by reducing the generation of power and the formation of ozone from the heat island effect. In sum, there are many additional feasible measures that should be evaluated and required for this Project. The Draft EIR should be revised to include these additional measures and be recirculated for public review. VIII. CONCLUSION As detailed in the comments above, the Draft EIR fails to meet the most basic requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR fails to comply with the goals of the General Plan, fails to adequately describe the Project and its environmental setting, and fails to adequately identify the Project's regulatory setting. The Draft EIR's air quality impact analysis for both the construction and operational phases of the Project are fatally flawed and considerably underestimate Project emissions. As a result, the Draft EIR fails to disclose all significant impacts and fails to disclose the full magnitude of all impacts. The Draft EIR did not require all feasible mitigation to mitigate these significant impacts from Project construction and mitigation. Additional feasible mitigation exists and should be required to reduce these significant impacts. In sum, the Draft EIRis patently inadequate and should be revised and recirculated for public review. .. See, for example: H. Akbar!, S. Konopacki, C. Eley, B, Wilcox, M. Van Geem and D. Parket, Calculations for Refleetive Roofs in Support of Standard 90.1, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, no. 1, 1998, pp. 984-996; L Gartland, S. Konopacki, and H. Akbar!, Modeling the Effeets of Refleetive Roofing, ACEEE 1996 Summpr Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 4, 1996, pp. 117-124. Page 33 e Exhibit 1 URBEMIS2002 Modeling Output for 36-month Construction Period and Vehicle Emissios Target Year 2009 . . Page: 1 10/27/2005 10:54 AM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 e File Name: Project Name: Project Location: On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions C:\Documents and Settings\petra Pless\My Documents\PP Environmental Consulting Temecula Regional Hospital South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PMIO PM10 ... 2006 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (1bs/day,unmitigatedl 41. 95 283.34 338..81 0.03 129.68 11. 96 117.72 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 41.95 283.34 338.81 0.03 53.81 11. 96 41. 85 PM10 PM10 PM10 ... 2007 ... RaG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitiqated) 13.82 89.14 115.14. 0.00 3.97 3.72 0.25 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 13.82 89.14 115.14 0.00 3.97 3.72 0.25 PMI0 PM10 PMI0 ... 2008 *.. ROG NOx CO. S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 343.64 227.46 295.63 0.01 9.35 8.83 0.52 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 343.64 227.46 295.63 0.01 9.35 8.83 0.52 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PMIO e TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 8.39 3.79 4.43 0.00 0.01 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES RaG NOx ca S02 PMI0 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 92.78 103.76 1,245.27 0.86 123.35 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PMIO TOTALS (lbs/ctay,unmitigated) 101.17 107.56 1,249.70 0.86 123.36 . . . . Petra Pless, D.Env. 4401 Nova Albion Way San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 492-2131 voice (775) 254-5849 tax ppless@earthlink.net Dr. Pless has over 10 years of experience in environmental engineering and science conducting and managing interdisciplinary environmental research projects and preparing and reviewing environmental permits and other documents for U.S. and European stakeholder groups. lbis broad-based experience includes air quality and air pollution control; water quality, water supply, and water pollution control; biology; public health and safety; noise studies and mitigation; National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and Clean Air Act ("CAN') review; industrial ecology and risk assessment; and use of a wide range of environmental software. EDUCATION Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering (D.Env.), University of Califomia, Los Angeles, 2001 M.S. Biology (with focus on botany/ecology/limnology), Technical University of Munich, Germany, 1991 PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Leson & Associates (previously Leson Environmental Consulting), Kensington, CA, Environmental Scientist/Project Manager, 1997 -present University of Califomia Los Angeles, Graduate Research Assistant/Teaching Assistant, 1994-96 ECON Research and Development, Environmental Scientist, Ingelheim, Germany, 1992-93 Biocontrol, Environmental Projects Manager, Ingelheim, Germany, 1991-92 REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Air Quality and Pollution Control Projects include CEQA/NEP A review; attainment and noncattainment new source review ("NSR"), prevention of significant deterioration ("PSD") and Title V permitting; qmtrol technology analyses (BACT, LAER, RACT, BARCT, MAC!); technology evaluations and cost- effectiveness analyses; criteria and toxic pollutant emission inventories; emission offsets; ambient and source monitoring; analysis of emissions estimates and ambient air pollutant concentration modeling. Some typical projects include: Petra Pless, D.Env. Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on the air quality, biology, noise, water quality, and public health and safety sections of CEQA/NEP A documents for numerous commercial, residential, and industrial projects (e.g., power plants, airports, residential developments, retail developments, hospitals, refineries, quarries, and mines). Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on the air quality and public health sections of the Los Angeles Airport Master Plan (Draft, Supplement, and Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report) for the City of El Segundo. Provided technical comments on the Draft and Final General Conformity Determination for the preferred alternative submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration. For several California refineries, evaluated compliance of fired sources with Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") Rule 9-10. This required evaluation and review of hundreds of source tests to determine if refinery-wide emission caps and compliance monitoring provisions were being met. Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on Draft Title V permits for several refineries and other industrial facilities in California. Evaluated the public health impacts of locating big-box retail developments in densely populated areas in California and Hawaii. The impacts of diesel exhaust emissions and noise on surrounding residential communities were measured and evaluated. In conjunction with the permitting of several residential and commercial developments, conducted studies to determine baseline concentrations of diesel exhaust particulate matter using an aethalometer. For an Indiana steel mill, evaluated technology to control NOx and CO emissions from fired sources, including electric arc furnaces and reheat furnaces, to establish BACT. This required a comprehensive review of U.S. and European operating experience. The lowest emission levels were being achieved by steel mills using selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") and selective non-catalytic reduction ("SNCR") in Sweden and The Netherlands. For a California petroleum coke caIciner, evaluated technology to control NOx, CO, VOCs, and PM10 emissions from the kiln and pyroscrubbers to establish BACT and LAER. This required a review of state and federal clearinghouses, working with regulatory agencies and pollution control vendors, and obtaining and reviewing permits and emissions data from other similar facilities. The best-controlled facilities were located in the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"). For a Kentucky coal-fired power plant, identified the lowest NOx levels that had been permitted and demonstrated in practice to establish BACT. Reviewed operating experience of European, Japanese, and U.S. facilities and evaluated continuous emission monitoring data. The lowest NOx levels had been permitted and achieved in Denmark and in the U.S. in Texas and New York. In support of efforts to lower the CO BACT level for power plant emissions, evaluated the contribution of CO emissions to tropospheric ozone formation imd co-authored report on same. Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on applications for certification (" AFCs") for several natural-gas fired and geothermal power plants in California permitted 2 e e e . e . Petra Pless, D.Env. by the California Energy Commission ("CEC"). The comments addressed construction and operational emissions inventories and dispersion modeling, BACT for turbines, etc. Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on draft PSD permits for several natural-gas fired power plants in California, Indiana, and Oregon. The comments addressed emission inventories, BACT, case-by-case MACT, compliance monitoring, cost- effectiveness analyses, and enforceability of permit limits. For a Califomia refinery, evaluated technology to control NOx and CO emissions from CO Boilers to establish RACTjBARCT to comply with BAAQMD Rule 9-10. This required a review of BACTjRACT/LAER clearinghouses, working with regulatory agencies across the U.s., and reviewing federal and state regulations and State Implementation Plans ("SIPs"). The lowest levels were required in a SCAQMD rule and in the Texas SIP. In support of several federal lawsuits filed under the Clean Air Act, prepared cost- effectiveness analyses for SCR and oxidation catalysts for simple cycle gas turbines and evaluated opacity data, Provided comprehensive environmental and regulatory services for an industrial laundry chain. Facilitated permit process with the SCAQMD. Developed test protocol for VOC emissions, conducted field tests, and used mass balance methods to estimate emissions, Reduced disposal costs for solvent-containing waste streams by identifying alternative disposal options. Performed health risk screening for air toxics emissions. Provided permitting support with SCAQMD. Renegotiated sewer surcharges with wastewater treatment plant. Identified new customers for shop-towel recycling services. Designed computer model to predict performance of biological air pollution control (biofilters) as part of a collaborative technology assessment project, co-funded by several major chemical manufacturers. Experience using a wide range of environmental software, including air dispersion models, air emission modeling software, database programs, and geographic information systems ("GIS"). Water Quality and Pollution Control Experience in all phases of water quality and pollution control, including surface water and ground water quality and supply studies, evaluating water and wastewater treatment technologies, and identifying, evaluating and implementing pollution controls. Some typical projects include: For a homeowner's association, reviewed a California Coastal Commission staff report on the replacement of 12,000 linear feet of wooden bulkhead with PVC sheet pile armor. Researched and evaluated impact of proposed project on lagoon water quality, including sediment resuspension, potential leaching of additives and sealants, and long-term stability. Summarized results in technical report. For a 500-MW combined-cycle power plant, prepared a study to evaluate the impact of proposed groundwater pumping on local water quality and supply, including a nearby stream, springs, and a spring-fed waterfall. The study was docketed with the CEC and summarized in a journal article. Evaluated impacts of on-shore oil drilling activities on large-scale coastal erosion in Nigeria. 3 Petra Pless, D,Env. e For a 50D-MW combined-cycle power plant, identified and evaluated methods to reduce water use and water quality impacts. These included the use of zero-liquid-discharge systems and alternative cooling technologies, including dry and parallel wet-dry cooling. Prepared cost analyses and evaluated impact of options on water resources. This work led to a settlement in which parallel wet dry cooling and a crystallizer were selected, replacing 100 percent groundwater pumping and wastewater disposal to evaporation ponds. Applied Ecology, Industrial Ecology and Risk Assessment Experience in applied ecology, industrial ecology and risk assessment, including human and ecological risk assessments, life cycle assessment, evaluation and licensing of new chemicals, and fate and transport studies of contaminants. Experienced in botanical, phytoplankton, and intertidal species identification and water chemistry analyses. Some typical projects include: For the California Coastal Conservancy, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Invasive Spartina Project, evaluated the potential use of a new aquatic pesticide for eradication of non-native, invasive cordgrass (Spartina spp.) species in the San Francisco Estuary with respect to water quality, biological resources, and human health and safety. Assisted staff in preparing an amendment to the Final ElR. Evaluated likelihood that measured organochlorine pesticide concentrations at a u.s. naval air station are residuals from past applications of these pesticides consistent with manufacturers' recommendations. Retained as expert witness in lawsuit. Prepared human health risk assessments of air emissions from several industrial and commercial establishments, including power plants, refineries, and commercial laundries. Managed and conducted studies to license new pesticides. This work included the evaluation of the adequacy and identification of deficiencies in existing physicalj chemical and health effects data sets, initiating and supervising studies to fill data gaps, conducting environmental fate and transport studies, and QA/ QC compliance at subcontractor laboratories. Prepared licensing applications and coordinated the registration process with German licensing agencies. This work led to regulatory approval of several pesticide applications in less than six months. Designed and implemented database on physical/ chemical properties, environmental fate, and health impacts of pesticides for a major European pesticide manufacturer. Designed and managed toxicological study on potential interference of delta-9-tetrahydro- cannabinol in food products with U.S. employee drug testing; co-authored peer-reviewed publication. Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on AFCs for several natural-gas fired and geothermal power plants and transmission lines in California permitted by the CEC. The comments addressed avian collisions and electrocution, construction and operational noise impacts on wildlife, risks from brine ponds, and impacts on endangered species. For a 18D-MW geothermal power plant, evaluated ihe impacts of plant construction and operation on the fragile desert ecosystem in the Salton Sea area, This work included baseline noise monitoring and assessing the impact of noise, brine handling and disposal, and air emissions on local biota, public health, and welfare. e e 4 e . . Petra Pless, D .Env. Designed research protocols for a coastal ecological inventory; developed sampling methodologies, coordinated field sampling, determined species abundance and distribution in intertidal zone, and analyzed data. Designed and conducted limnological study on effects of physical! chemical parameters on phytoplankton succession; performed water chemistry analyses and identified phytoplankton species; co-authored two journal articles on results. Conducted technical, ecological, and economic assessments of product lines from agricultural fiber crops for European equipment manufacturer; co-authored proprietary client reports. Developed life cycle assessment methodology for industrial products, including agricultural fiber crops and mineral fibers; analyzed technical feasibility and markets for thermal insulation materials from plant fibers and conducted comparative life cycle assessments. Conducted and organized underwater surveying and mapping of plant species in several lakes and rivers in Sweden and Germany as ecological indicators for the health of limnological ecosystems. PRO BONO ACTIVITIES Management of "SecondAid," a non-profit organization providing tsunami relief for the recovery of small family businesses in Sri Lanka. (www.secondaid.org) Teehnical consulting for Lakota Village Fund, a non-profit organization for environmental improvement and economic development projects for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. (www.lakota-village.de) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Chemical Society American Institute of Chemical Engineers Association of Environmental Professionals SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Fox JP and Pless P, Cost-effectiveness of catalytic oxidation for the control of VOCs and CO from power generation facilities, to be submitted to Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. Fox JP and Pless P, Fuel and energy penalties associated with catalytic pollution control systems used in power generation, to be submitted to Power Engineering. Fox JP, Rose TP, Sawyer TL, and Pless P, Isotope hydrology of a spring-fed waterfall in fractured volcanic rock, to be submitted to Journal of Hydrology. Leson G and Pless P, Hemp seeds and hemp oil, in: Grotenhermen F and Russo E (eds), Cannabis und Cannabinoids, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential, The Haworth Integrative Healing Press, New York, 2002. 5 Petra Pless, D.Env. e Leson G, Pless P, Grotenhermen F, Kalant H, and ElSohly M, Evaluating the impact of hemp food consumption on workplace drug tests, Journal of Analytical Toxicology, vol. 25 (11/12), pp. 1-8, 2001. Pless P, Technical and environmental assessment of thermal insulation materials from fiber crops, doctoral dissertation in Environmental Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, 2(;01. Leson G and Pless P, Assessing the impact of THC uptake from hemp oil cosmetics on work- place drug testing, Report to the Agricultural Research and Development Initiative (" ARDI"), Morris, MB, 2001. . Leson G and Pless P, Hemp Foods and Oils for Health, Your Guide to Cooking, Nutrition and Body Care, HempTech, Sebastopol, CA, 1999. Leson G and Pless P, What variety? Hemp cultivars for Canada, Commercial Hemp, Fall 1998, pp.7-8. Leson G and Pless P, Farming and processing: Technology status, Commercial Hemp, Summer 1998, pp. 5-6. Center for Waste Reduction Technologies in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Collaborative Biofilter Project, Technical Report, co-author with Leson G of sections 'Compound Database: 'Design Manual: and 'Literature Database: 1998. Hantke B, Domany I, Fleischer P, Koch M, Pless P, Wiendl M, and Melzer M, Depth profiles of the kinetics of phosphatase activity in hardwater lakes of different trophic level, Arch. Hydrobiologia, vol. 135, pp. 451-471, 1996. Hantke B, Fleischer P, Domany I, Koch M, Pless P, Wiendl M, and Melzer M, P-release from DOP by phosphatase activity in comparison to P-excretion by zooplankton: studies in hardwater lakes of different trophic level, Hydrobiologia, vol. 317, pp. 151-162, 1996. Pless P, Untersuchungen zur Phytoplanktonentwicklung im Herrensee (investigations on phytoplankton succession in an oligotrophic hardwater lake), Masters Thesis in biology with focus on botany j ecology jlirnnology, Technical University of Munich, Germany, 1991. e . 6 _:I:::II<M=-......::II.-.-..._.....:;...J- -1.I:.Im _.__.I_.::I,T'I::Iet.._'_-~lI."_=,-..CI=- . 10/28/2005 02:55 9516821832 BBK PAGE 01/07 . BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A. CAUFORMA UHrTm IJABtUTY PARTNERSHIP .IHCLUOIHO PAOFESSIOH"," CORPOMTlON3 INDIAN WELlS (760) See.a6' 1 LAWYERS 3750 UNI\IER$ITY AvEAut POST OFFICE BOX I-OZ8 RIVERSIDE. CAUF'OAN1A 92",,02.'028 (g51) ee&I450 (9~ I) e6&-3093 fAX BBKLAW.CDM SACRAMENTO cg, 6> 3e5~OO 1A,\I1NE. ((:)40;.) aCS.3-2000 SAN DI6:GO (eIQ) $25--1300 ONTARIO (~OO) geg...e.5S4 WALNUT ~E:[K (925) 74&7300 TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION DATE: October 28, 2005 To: NAME FAX No. (951) 694-6477 PHONE No. Emery Papp City of Temecula Plannin De artment FROM: Salvador M. Salazar RE: . FILENo.: MESSAGE: USER No.: 1346 No. OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER: CAUTION - CONFIDENTIAL: THE DO~NT BEING TELECOPffiO TO YOU MA Y CONTAIN INFORMA 110N PROTEClED BY TIlE A TIURNEY -CLlENTIWORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. It is intcndod only for the person to whom it is addressod. If you arc not the intended recipient or an authorized agmt, then this is notice to you that dissemination. distiibution or copying of this document is prohibited. If this was received in error, plea!c call us at once and destroy the document. IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTY WITH THE QUALITY OR COMPLETENeSS OF THIS TRANSMISSION. PLEASE CALL _UPPORTSERVICES (951) 686-1450. EXT. 388. RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:30PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 2 10/28/2005 02:55 9516821832 BBK PAGE 02/07 ONTARIO lOO9l9B9-e5B4 BEST BESf &. KRIEGER LLP A C^1J~ANIA. UMITD' UAf'IUTY PAR1'1olERS"IP I~LUDINO PAOfb3~IQNA.L CORPORA'hOM$ lAWYERS 3750 UNIVERSfTY A\l'E.NUE PDSTomCE BOX loze RIVEFtSIDE. e.o.LJFORNIA e2S0a-1 028 ~S I) eSO-I460 (ge\J I) 68&3053 FAX BBKLAW,COM e It4DIAN WEU-S (760) 566-z6 I f $ACRAM<tnO (Q I e> 32$-4000 IR....n~E (gAQ) ~e3-2600 SAN OlEGO (919) 025-1300 WALNUT CREEK (92S) 7-4fS-7300 SALVADOR M. SALAZAR SAL.VAOOR. SAlAZAR@aSKLAW.COM October 28, 2005 Via Facsimile and First Class Mail Emery Papp, Senior Planner City.of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: COMMENTS ON DRAFf ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR l' A04-0462, P A04-1463, AND P A04-0571 (UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES BOSPITAL PROJECT) e Dear Mr. Papp: This law firm represents Brad and Nicole Stonnon, owners of a single family residence located on the northeast comer of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road, directly across the street from the northerly boundary of the proposed Universal Health Services Hospital development project ("Project"). The Stormons are in receipt of the City of Temecula's Notice of Availability of the DEIR for the Project. The Stonnons have retained us to assist them in reviewing the potential impacts of this Project on the environment, their residence and their neighborhood. As previously stated in the comments we submitted on April 6, 2005 to the City, the StOlTIlOnS do not object to the construction of a hospital on the subject site. The Stormons want to be assured that the Project does not cause urunitigated adveIllc environmental impacts to their residence and lJeighborhood. To that end, the Stormons have attended most of the neighborhood meetings held by the City and/or developer of the Project for the pUlpose of working with the developer and the City to create mutually acceptable Project. They have. become quite familiar with the Project and all of its components. In fact, the Stormons have several times voiced their concerns about the Project to City staff, representatives of the hospital, and the Planning Commission during their hearing on the Project on April 6, 2005. Throughout the consideration of this Project the Stannons have been infonned that their concerns would be addressed in the environmental docwnents for the Project. Unfortunately, to date, their concerns have not been . addressed. RVPUB\5A1,.V ^OOR.SALAZAR\702643. t RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:30PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 3 e . . 10/28/2005 02:55 9516821832 88K PAGE 03/07 LAW ornCES of BEST BEST Ii. KRIEGER uP City ofTemecula, Planning Department October 28, 2005 Page 2 In fact, the current Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project fails to analyze the deficiencies in the environm.ental documents previously raised. Indeed, their concerns about spill-over traffic using Pio Pico Road Street is not addressed in the DEIR. Th.e California Environmental Quality Act requires the City, as a lead agency, to incorporate all feasible mitigation measures. The Stormons continue to believe that their specific concerns about the adverse traffic, noise, and aesthetic impacts from the Project may be alleviated with: (1) a mitigation measure requiring the developer to construct solid fencing along the Stonnous' property frontage (to screen noise, block exhaust and screen light and glare); and (2) requiring the installation of traffic calming devices such as signs (No Access to Hospital) or stmctures along Pio Pico Road (to slow traffic coming south from Pio Pico Road to access tbe northerly portion of the Hospital and minimize U-turn traffic by drivers who miss the single DePortola driveway entrance to the hospital). Implementation of these mitigation measures would clearly lessen. the significant impacts of the Project. However, none of these mitigation . measures were analyzed or discussed in the DEIR or included in the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan prepared for the project despite the testimony of the Stonnons and other neighbors, that increase in traffic, especially the increased identified in the OEIR, will also increase the existing spill over traffic. In fact, the supplemental traffic impact analysis devotes one paragraph on page 17 of Appendix D to refute that any cars will ever use Pio Pico Road to access the Hospital. The ao.alysis, however, fails to consider tbe statement included in the previous paragraph that Margarita Road will operate at a LOS E on a daily basis. Common sense, and existing traffic patterns, would dictate that a driver would choose to use a residential street with less traffic rather a commercial street which where movement of cars requires waiting for more than one traffic cycle. Consequently, the Stonnons continue to believe that the failure to discuss and include these feasible mitigation measures renders analysis under the DEIR and mitigation monitoring and reporting plan deficient. We have setforth, the Stonnons' conclusions in more detail below. DEFI.CIENCIES IN -rm: OEIR 1. THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO PIO PICO ROAD. The failure to discuss potential environmental impacts may result in an inadequate environmen.tal document. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass 'n v. Montecito Water Dist. . (2004) 116 Cal.App.4lh 396.) The supplemental traffic impact analysis contained in the DEIR (and the original traffic impact analysis prepared as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration) again inexplicably fail to assign any vehicle trips to Pio Pico Road. Further the intersection of Pio Pico Road and DePortola Road was not one of the intersections studied in the supplemental traffic analysis. (California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15063 ["State CEQA Guidelines"].) The supplemental traffic impact analysis assigns 56% of the vehicle trips to Highway 79 (South) and 15% of the trips to DePortola Road. (DElR Appendix D figure 2-la) The traffic analysis (original and supplemental traffic analysis) also "evaluated all of the RvPUBISAl v ADORSALAZAR\702r,43,1 RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:31PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 4 10/28/2005 02:55 PAGE 04/07 9516821832 BBK LAW oFFICES OF BEST BEST Ii. KRIEGER LLP CityofTemecula, Planning Department October 28, 2005 Page 3 inte(Sections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road and DePortola Road." (DEIR appendix D.) However, no vehicle trips were ever assigned to Pio Pico Road and the intersection of Pio Pico Road and DePortola Road was not one of the intersections studied in the Traffic Analysis (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.) We understand that the traffic engineer retained by the Project proponents' believes that no assignment of trips to Pio Pico Road is necessary because traffic will not use primarily residential streets to access the hospital. However, there is already a significant amount of traffic that comes from the residents in the northerly areas of the City of TemecuJa that use Margarita Road and then cut south to Pio Pico Road. These conditions will be exacerbated because persons coming from the northerly portions of the City to the Hospital will find it easier to bypass most of the traffic accessing the Hospital from Margarita Road and instead enter the Hospital complex from the driveway located off DePortola Road. Indeed, it appears from looking at a map of the City that a large portion of its population base is located north of the Hospital with easy access to Margarita Road as a means to travel south in the City. Given these street conditions, the Stonnous again request that the traffic analysis be amendcd to: (1) include a study of the intersection of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road; and (2) study the reassignment of vehicle triPs that would travel south beginning at the intersection Margarita Road to Pio Pico Road. In the event the City is unable to conduct an amended Traffic Analysis, the Stonnons continue to request that a mitigation measure be added to require tuat a sign be placed at the intersection ofpio Pico and Margarita and at the intersection ofPio Pico and DePortola Road informing motorists that these streets do not provide hospital access. This recommendation should be included as :a mitigation measure because there is a significant traffic impact on the to adjoining residential properties. Further, the requested mitigation measure is feasible and within the City's ability arid authority to impose it. (Pub. Res. Code Section 21004 and State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15364.) As the City is required to adopt all feasible mitigation measures, if the City refuses to incorporate the suggested mitigation into the Project, the City must provide a reasonable explanatidn and recirculate the DEIR for an additional 45 day comment period. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5 (a)(3).) 2. THEDEIR IDENTIFIES SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM NOISE SOURCES A.SSOCIATED WI.m THE PROJECT, BUT OMITS DISCUssION ON How THOSE IMPACTS WILL BE MITIGATED To LESS TIlAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS. The DEIR notes under page 4-6 'that "Even with mitigation measureS to reduce helicopter flight noise impacts, these impacts cannot be mitigated. to below a level of significance because of I AdditionaDy, we note tbat while the City may utilize information prepared by th.e Project p(oponent, the City must find that the environmental analysis reflectS the City's independentjuA-'~L (See, e.g. State CEQA Guidelines < 15074.) ...,..~ .' . " RVPUlllSAL V AOOR.SALAZAR\702643.1 e e e RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:31PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 5 16/28/2665 62:55 9516821832 88K PAGE 65/67 .BEST LAW OFFlCES OF BEST &. KRIEGER LLP City ofTemecula, PllUlJ)ing Department October 28, 2005 Page 4 uncertainty of the exact number of flights per month due to unknown number of emergencies that will occur within any given month. Helicopter flight noise impacts will be significant and u7w.voidable ". e The property that is the closest to the Heliport is to the Stormons' property. The Stonnons believe that an approximate use of the Heliport could be determined by using comparisons with similar type of facilities to calculate the average number of helicopter flights to and from the Hospital. The study of similar facilities should analyze (I) the anticipated frequency of use of the heliport; (2) the: anticipated noise levels associated with the heliport; and (2) the potential noise impacts to surrounding properties. Once this study is completed, mitigation measures could be identified and recommended so that the significant impacts identified in the DEIR are mitigated to the extent possible and to allow the decision making body to make an informed decision and comply with CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, S 15002(a)(I). The Stormons are recommending that, in the event the City is unable to obtain this information, the construction of a block wall along the southerly portion of their propmy should be incOIl'orated as a mitigation measure toi minimize the increased ambient and interior noise levels cause by the 6 flights per month anticipated and described in the DEIR. (See DEIR page 4-64) 3. FAILURE To PREPARE A, NOISE STUDY THAT DETERMINES THE NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED FUGHTS To THE HOSPITAL. As noted above, the City failed to include or prepare a noise study that analyzes the noise that could be generated by the maximum number of flights arriving at the Hospital. Without this flight and noise study the decision mWdng bodies (planning Commission and City Council) cannot make an infonned decision, and will not be able to incorporate mitigation measures that are feasible and capable of implementation to minimize noise significant impacts. Additionally, we find that the noise conclusions regarding noise impacts from the heliport in the DEIR are so brief and conclusory that it makes the OEIR inadequate and recirculation is likely necessary. (See Mountain Lion Coalition v Fish alld Game Comm 's (1989) 214 CA3d 1043,263 CR 104 [in which an agency analyzed cumulative impacts in a brief and conclusory fashion which rendered the EIR inadequate and recirculation was necessary].) 4. IMPACTS FATLURE To PREPARE: ADEQUATE MmGATION MEASURES FOR AESTHETIC . The DEIR notes that the project will include various buildings and a hospital structu.re that includes towers of five and six stories (106' in height). It further notes that "[WJhile the project will be visible from various reSidential lots, a less than significant impact is anticipated because views are considered private and are not considered to be ofpubUc benefit." (DEIR at p. 4-5.) However, this statement does not absolve the City from analyzing the aesthetic and visual impacts on surrounding residential p.roperties of constructing a six-story building. There can be no doubt that the visual chllnlCter of the area will be significantly affected with the construction of 106-foot tall structure in the immedlate vicinity of a residential neighborhood. (Ocean View RVPUB\SAL V ADOR.SAl.AZ^R\702~3.1 RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:31PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 6 , , 16/28/2665 62:55 9516821832 BSK PAGE 66/67 '-"W OFFICES of' BEST BEST l5. KRIEGER LLP City ofTemecula, Planning Department October 28, 2005 Page 5 e Estates HomeownerS Ass'n v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396 [concern of local residents regarding aesthetic impacts roay establish substantial evidence to support a fair argument that a project has a significant adverse impact on aesthetics]; The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 2004 Cal.App. LEXlS 2074 [lay opinion roay be substantial evidence of aesthetic impacts].) Dismissing the analysis simply because the views are not leglllly protected does not comply with the requirements of CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15063; see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 [statiog that the lead agency must consider every fair argument that can be made about a possible significant environmental effect, even if the project already meets established thresholds].) The conclusions reached in the DEIR must be based on some evidence to indicate the basis for the determinations made. (Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Development v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App. 3d 151, 171.) Failure to base the conclusions in. the DEIR on substantial evidence renders the DEIR, and the findings and statement of overriding considerations based on the OEIR entirely inadequate. 5. ILLEGAL DEFERRAL OF MmGA'l10N MEASUKES FOR AEsTHETIC IMPACTS Mitigation measures must be designed to minimize impacts. (pRC Section 21000 and e State CEQA Guidelines, 9 15126.4). In this case the mitigation measures for the Project's aesthetic impacts fail to minimize lighting impacts to the surrounding properties, including the Stonnons'residence. Deferral of mitigation measures roay be permitted only when a mitigation measure has been defined, but the extent of mitigation that may be required will depend on the results of a later study. (Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 CA 4th 1428. See also Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents ofUni. of California (1988) 47 C3d 376.) In this DEIR, mitigation measure A-I proposes to defer the analysis of lighting impacts on surrounding properties. The mitigation measure states: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed lighting levels. . onto adjacent project boundaries including mitigation measures, Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use . . . shall also be prepared including means to mitigate ". . This mitigation measure fails to incorporate performance criteria that can be reviewed to determine what will be done if the lighti.ng levels adversely impact the surrounding properties and/or the ~lts are not in compliance with City regulations. Submittal of a photometric plan does not and cannot initieate an impact if there is no established criteria as to what level of lighting intensity is acceptable. Mitigation Measure A-3 states that: ". .. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent residential parcels ". . RVPUB\SALV AOOR.SALAZAR\702643.1 RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:32PM; _>CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 7 e . . 10/28/2005 02:55 9516821832 BBK PAGE 07/07 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER UP City of Temecula, Planning Department October 28, 2005 Page 6 This mitigation measure as well as mitigation measure A-I fails to include a performance standard describing the level of mitigation needed. A mitigation measure that provides that "[E]nbanced landscaping may be required" is not a mitigation measure because it does not specify under the conditions under which the enhancements will be required. (Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 CA 4th 1428. See also Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents ofUni. afCalifornia (1988) 47 C3d376.) CONCLUSION We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for this Project. For the reasons set forth above, the Stormons continue to believe that the DEIR does not adequately analyze impacts to traffic, noise and aesthetics, nor does it incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would minimize the impacts identified above. The Stonnons believe the City must incorporate their suggested mitigation measures or prepare additional studies (noise and traffic) to detennine what level of mitigation is needed to minimize the significant impacts identified. At a minimum, if the City chooses not to incorporate the suggested mitigation measures, the City must recirculate the DEIR. Cc: Honorable Chairman and Memb fthe PI . Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director Brad & Nicole Stormon RVPlJB\sAL V AlJOR.SAJ.A7.AR\7{l2643.1 RECEIVED: 10/26/05 3:56PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #376; PAGE 2 . . . 11'1/26/2005 04: 21 9516821832 BEl< PAGE 02/03 INDIAN WEUS (7001 566.2.6 I f BEST BEST' & KRIEGER LLP A ~'O"NIA UMrTED I./ADlUTY PARTNER3HI" INCUWIf<<l! ~"E5-~~ ~ftA.T1OH:S LAWYERS 37$0 UNIVERSITY A\lENUe<' POST OFF1CE SOX 1028 RTVr.ASIOE, CAUFOF'(HIA 92.!S02-1 028 (951) eSe--t450 (9.!S I J 666-3093 fAX eeKLAW,COM W,Al,NUT cREEK (g,25) 746-7300 SA.CAAMEIfTO 19 161 .325-.4000 IRVINE Ui~49J Ze3-zeoo SAN olEOO (etBI925-1300 ONTARIO (QOg) 061>8.!S84 SALVADOR M. SAl..AzAR SALVADOR .SAL.A%AA@OI!lKLAW.COM October 26, 2005 Via Facsimile and First Class Mail Emery Papp, Senior Planner City ofTemecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: EXTENSION OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR TEMECULA HOSPITAL EIR FOR PA04-0462, PA04~1463, AND PA04-0S?1 (UNIVERSAL HEALTII SERVICES HOSPITAL PROJECT) Dear Mr. Papp: This law firm represents Brad and Nicole StomlOn, owners of a single family residence located on the northeast comer of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road directly across the street from the northerly boundary of the prpposed Universal Health Services Hospital development project ("Project"). I . We have received a copy of the' Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepated for the Project. It is our understanding the public review period fOf the Project DEIR will terminate on Friday October 28, 2005. The public review period fOf the DEIR is only 30 days. However, as you know, CEQA requires a 45 day review time frame for regionally sisnificant projects like this one. Due to the complexity of the Project, we are requesting additional time to review and comment on the DEIR. We request to be permitted to review and submit comments, if any, by Thursday November 10, 2005. We understand that the City must balance the ability of tbe public to respond within the time frame against the interest of the applicant. However, the additional time requested. will not interfere with the scheduled Planning Commission and City Council meetings of November 16, and November 22, 2005, respectively. RVPUBISAL V ADOR.SALAZAR\702616.1 RECEIVED: 10/26/05 3:56PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; .1#376; PAGE 3 18/26/2885 84:21 9516821832 BBK PAGE 03/03 LAW omCES OF' BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP City of Temecula, Planning Department October 26, 2005 Page 2 Should you have any questions please call me. Thank you. Cc: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director Brad & Nicole Stormon RVP'UB\SAL V ADOR.SALAZAR\70261 G.I e e e IARREN D, WILLIAMS neral Manager-Chief Engineer . e . 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 95 1.788.9965 FAX www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERV A nON DISTRICT I. ii '~l i!iU :-!f October 26, 2005 Ii I ,: ji Ii i. I' 1- ."'_._ >-.._~.. OCT .jl 2005 Mr: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Papp: Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Temecula Regional Hospital Thi~ letter is written in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. The proposed project is located. on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road, and approximately. 700 feet west of Margarita Road, within the city of . . Temecula. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has the following comments/concerns that should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR): I. Existing District facilities are located adjacent to the proposed project area and may be impacted. The proposed project may impact the District's Temecula Creek Line V. Any work that involves District rights-of-way, easements, or facilities will require an encroachment permit from the District. The construction offacilities within road right- of-way that may impact District storm drains should also be coordinated with us. To obtaiii further inforinatitm on encroachment permits or existing facilities, contact Ed Lotz of the EncroachmentPermit Section at 951.955.1266. 2. Page 4-33, Section 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality of the DEIR incorrectly states that the District reviews all proposed projects within the planning area. Please be advised that the District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other . regional flood control and drainage facilities. which could be conSidered a logical component or extension of a master plan.. system, and Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). Please refer to the previous letter dated August 25,2005 that is included in the NOP Responses section of the DEIR. . Mr. Emery J. Papp Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Temecula Regional Hospital -2- October 26, 2005 3. It is unclear in the DEIR where the proposed storm drain system will outlet. Any impacts that may occur to the District's existing Line V Stage 2 Channel as a result of the connection should be addressed. Potential impacts include, but are not limited to, biological resources, air quality, water quality and potential for increased erosion due to concentration of flows. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please forward any subsequent environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions concerning this letter may be referred to Steven Horn at 951.955.1200 or me at 951.955.1233. TERESA TIJNG Senior Civil Engineer c: TLMA Attn: David Mares Ed Lotz SCH:mcv P8\102972 e e e _:I::I~=-a1'''::II._...r.....:......... -..c~::.IIlTI _._-..=-.::Iml::l......_.Xt=Ioe__=r..1:CJ=- 10/2812005 T3:2l FAX 9095069491 PECHAN6A CULTURAL ~ 001/006 . Pechanga Cultural Resource Center Temeuelo Bond of Lulscno Mlulon Indians Pechcu1ga Reservation Post Offlu Box 2183 Temecula. Callfornlo 92593 Telephone: (951) 308-9295 Facsimile: (951) 506-9491 Facsimile Infonnation Paee PleaSeDeliverTo:fkro",,~ ~. Attn: [~ -::So ~~ Fax#: d:5J ) fO'T't - G.}n--~ From: PCRC Total Number of Pages Sent Including this Page: (; . NOTICE: H You Do Not ReceIve Leglbl. Copies of All Th. Pages, Pi.... Call (909) JOlHlZ9S ASAr aDd Ask For TIl. send.r. ~1M' bwLi\ ~ r DIY1I'1\P^ts 0() 'Da.\.\ f \ R fir TijVl{~ ~1t4l SENT BY: DATE SENT: RE: Thb traDSmlsoIon I. InI.Dd.d only for the me or the Indlvfdual or eDllty to wblcb It Is addressed and may conla/o IDfQnWlllon tballs privileged, eontldeutlalaDd enmpl from dlsclosDre under appliable law. U Ibe reader of ibis message Is DOt th'/ole..ded recipient, or tbe employee or agenl rcspoD5lble Cor dettverIDg Ibe _ge to the mlmded redplenl, YOD are hereby DOllJjed th.t any dhsemlDadoll, dlslribDlloD or pbotot:opy/Qg DC this commuDlcalfou .. otrIctIy prohlblted. U you have realTed thls e:ommunIeatioD ID uror, pleue DOtUy US lMMEDIAtnY by telephone, and return the original message 10 ns at the above addfts. via the U.s. Postal Sen'ice. Thank you. COMMENTS::H0Dl ~(I\"~ \ ~Ll;:,w i" ~ \. 5~-(\\.( lFA- ~'-(M ~;.. . ORIGINAL: . WILL WILL NOT SEND CONFIRM'RECErl'T, YES NO RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1:33PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #399; PAGE 2 10/28/2005 13:21 FAX 9095069491 PECHAHSA CULTURAL ~ 002/006 ('h:lirpcrl'ono: .. (km):lll1cArcnlh .. PECHANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES Te1l/f!C"1I11l Bmld (If Lu;seiio Mission Indians Vice Chaul'Cf"'lO\I: Mllry I:!l'ur M:lgce POSt ()fticc. Box 21 K3 . Tcmccula, <:A 92593 Telcphonc (951) 30R-9295 . Fax (951) 506-9491 Cnmmmct: McmhcT!<: I{aymlmd Hli.~lIe7, Sr. fo.vic<icrhcr DarlcncMiranda Aridr,cn narccll.) M:1xwdl n;f~\'llU, (I;lIyDU'Rlli, October 24, 2005 Coun.liu;,tlUl: l'iIllIMil\'i\lf\.l rulim:ll ^naly:d. SIt.:ph:lntL' Gtmlin Emery J. Papp City of Temccula Planning Department 43200 Dusiness Park Drive I Temecula, CA 92590 Mumlor SUPI.'fVl:'llr: Aurdi:l MUrTUn.U Re: Comments on Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Papp, Tlus comment letter is submitted by tbe Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians (hereinafter, "Pecbanga Tribe"), a federally recognizcd Indian tribe and sovereign government. The Pechanga Tribe is formally requesting, pursuant to Public Resources Code ~2] 092.2, to bc notified and involved in the entirc CEQA enviromnenlal review process for the duration of the above referenced projecl (thc "Project"). e Pursuant to our discussion yesterday, it is the Tribe's understanding that, in addition to the conditions listed as itcms 5b and 5i in the initial study, the City intends to include as a condition of approval, to be completed prior to grading, the requirement for a Treatment Agreement between the developer and the Tribe. As discussed, the Tribe has some additional items which it will be requesting be added as mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Whilc the Tribe appreciates the City's willingness to include conditions ofapprovaJ for the project which will protect the potential cultural resources on the site, it has a concern about the City's lack ofillclusion ofcultura! resources in its CEQA evaluation ofthe project. I am also requesting that the County of Riverside include an additional mitigation measure that deals specifically witb the treatment of remains, ifthey are found during any grading activity. The mitigation requirements should also include information relating to the pre-excavation agreement which requires the developer to provide compensation to the monitors during the Project. . RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1:33PM; _>CITY OF TEMECULA; #399; PAGE 3 10/28/2005 13:21 FAX 9095069491 e . . PECHANGA CULTURAL ~ 003/006 Pechanga comment letter to thc County of Riverside Planning Department RE: Comments on Draft Focused fIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital Page 2 THE LEAD AGENCY MUST INCLUDE AND CONSULT WITH THE TRIBE IN ITS REVIEW PROCESS It has bccn the intent of the Federal Governmentl and thc State ofCalifomia2 that Indian tribcs be consulted with regard to issucs which impact cultural and spiritual rcsources, as wel J as other governmcntal concems. The responsibility to consult with Indian tribes sLems from the unique government-to-governmcnt rclationship between the United States and Indian tribes. This arises when tribal interests are affected by the acLions of governmcntal agencies and departments such as approval of Specific Plans and EIRs. In this case, it is undisputed thaLthe project lies . within the Luisefio tribe's traditional territory. Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and other applicable Federal and California law, it is imperative that the Lead Agency and the Project <J.pplicant consult with the Tribe in order to guarantee an adequatc basis of knowledge for an appropriatc evaluation ofthe project effects, as wcll as generating adequate mitigation measures. THE CITY INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE DRIR While a copy of the cultural resources survey is included in the EIR and the Tribe understands that a "focused" EIR was intended, there is no scction discussing cultural resourccs and no mitigation measures specifically addressing cultural resources, despite the fact that the City and cultural resources report aCknowledge that the Project is in a culturally sensitive area As the City is aware, there is a highly sensitive cultural site in close proximity to this Project site. While the cultural resources report concludes Ihatlherc wcre 110 resources located on the project site, this is not a conclusive evaluation since no subsurface testing was performcd. Because of the proximity to the other significant site, the Tribe believes there is a likelihood for cultural resources to be encountered during ground disturbing activities. Thus, the Tribe believes that cultural resources should have bcen includcd as a topic of evaluation in the focused EIR. CEQA makes clear that the main purposes of an EIR is to identify and analyze thc environmental effects of a project. (California Public Resource Code 921002.1 (a); 14 California Code of Regulations ("Guidelines") 915126). As currently drafted, the draft EIR does nol provide adequate protection for significant archaeological and cultural sites and does not adequately follow the provisions for CEQA and its Guidelines, including Calif. Pub. Res. Code ~21 083.2(b) (avoidance as prcfcrred method of preservation of archaeological resources), CEQA Guidelines 9 15 I 26.4(b)(3) (agencies should avoid effccts on historical resources of archaeological nature), and CEQA Guidelines 915020 (lead agency rcsponsiblc tor adequacy of cnvironmcntal documents). Inclusion of project conditions of approval does not substitute for the City's obligations to adequately mitigate undcr CEQA. I See Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 on Govenunent-lo-Govemment Relations with Native American Tribal Governments and Executive Order of November 6,2000 on Consultalion and Coordination with Indian Tn'hal Govemmellts. 2 See California Public Resource Code 95097.9 et scq. Peclllmg{1 ell/rural R('soll"(,(~S . um1('cula Band ofLuisel1o Mis.>iit", I"dia"s Post Office Box lIS3' Tememlll. e4 92592 Sacred 1.\' The Duly Tnt.\'lt:d Umo Our ('are And It'l'" Honor We Ri.w! 7u Tht:.' Net'd RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1 :33PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULAj #399; PAGE 4 10/28/2005 13:22 FAX 9095069491 PECHANGA CULTURAL . ~ 004/006 Pechanga comment letter to the County of Riverside Planning Department RE: Comments on Draft Focused ETR for the Temecula Regional Hospital Page 3 e In order to approve an EIR the City is required to make finding that it has adopted mitigation measures that have climinated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where fcasible. CEQA Guidcline ~ 15092. Since therc are currently no mitigation measures addressing cultural resources, the focused EIR does not fully address the required cultural resources protections as it does not propose mitigation measures which would eliminate or substantially lesscn significant effects on cultural resoUTCes. Because there is a potential for the discovery of cultural reSOUTces and/or human remains on the Project sile, appropriate mitigation must be adopted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21082 and CEQA Guidelines 99 150645, 15 I 26.4 and 15151 a Lead Agency should make provisions for historical or unique archaeological rcsources discovered during construction. Iv; detailed below, inclusion of mitigation measures addressing cullural resources are needed to address the Tribe's cultural concerns and to assure that the Project is in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations, Calif. Pub. Res. Code 921000 et seq.. and CEQA Guidelines!i 15000 et seq. It is the Tribe's position that its proposed mitigation measures will enable the City to make the required findings. The CEQA and its Guidelines mandate that avoidance is the preferred method of preserving archaeological resources, Calif. Pub. Res. Code !i2I 083.2(b). See a/so CEQA Guidelines 9 15126.4(b)(3). e PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES The Pechanga Tribc's primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Nativc American cultural resourccs. As was discussed above, the potential likelihood of discovering cultural resources is very high, due to other known resources found in close proximity to this project. The most well known cultural site within this area is a hugc Luiseiio village site, which has been previously documentcd and is known to contain at least fifteen archeological sites within a one mile radius of this village. Within this village site numerous cultund items have . been found including whole metates as well as fragments, pottery shards and many other personal and sacred items. The Pechanga Tribe is concerned about both the protection of uniquc and irreplaceable cultural resources, such as Luisei'io village sites and archeological items which would be displaced by ground disturbing work on the project, and on the propcr and lawful treatment of cultural items, Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the course of the work. The Tribe would also like to point out that a preferred method of treatment for archeological sites according to the CEQA is avoidance and that this is in agreement with the Tribe's practices and policies concerning cullUral resources. The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of the Pechanga Tribe's aboriginal _ territory, as evidenced by the existence ofLuisciio place names, rock art pictographs, . petroglyphs and extensive artifact records found in the vi~inity of the proJect. Further, the PI!clIaJJga Cultural Resour('(!.\'" Ji:ml!CUlll BlIml of L,fiS(U;Q MiS$;m, 'ndia,,_" Po.'it OJjke Box 2/lJJ . Tc.'meclI/a. CA 9.?5Q'? Sllal;:,/ Is Tlw DIlf.v Trusted Umo (Jllr Care And With J/'J/lor We Ilixe f'n Thf-' Ne~d RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1:34PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #399; PAGE 5 10/29/2005,13:22 FAX 9095069491 . . . PECHAN6A CULTURAL ~ 005/006 Pechanga comment letler to thc County of Riverside Planning Department RE: Comments on Draft Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital Page 4 Pechanga Tribe belicves that if human remains are discovered, State law would apply and the mitigation measures for the permit must account for this. According to the California Public Rcsources Code, S 5097.98, if Native Amcrican human remains are discovered, the Native American Heritage commission must name a "most likely dcscendant," who shall be consultcd as to the appropriate disposition oCthe remains. Given the Project's location in Pechanga territory, the Pechanga Tribe intends to asscrt its right pursuant to California law with regard to any remains or itcms discovered in the course ofthis project. For this reason, additional mitigation language is requested prior to the finalized EIR being approved. REOUlRED MITIGATION Given this Project's close proximity 10 known cultural sites that were nol discussed in the Initial cultural study, including a known village site, Pechanga request the Conditions of Approval that were presented in the fuitial Study, along with those addresses below, be included as mitigation measures as well as Conditions of Approval which are required to be met prior 10 the issuance of grading permits. The following conditions listed in the fuitial Study are requested to be included as mitigation: 1. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent authorized by the law. 2. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontologist, archacological and Pechanga Tribc monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor's shall each have thc authority to temporarily hall and/or divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain remains offossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The fOllowing measures should be included as both mitigation measures and conditions of approval: 3. Ifhuman remains are encounlered, all activity shall stop and the County Coroncr must be notified immediately. All activity must cease until the County Coroner has dctcrmined the origin and disposition of said remains. The Coroner shall detennine iflhe remains are prehistoric, and shall notify the State Native American Heritage Commission if applicable, Further actions shall be determined by the desires of the Most Likdy Descedent. 4. Prior to issuance of the grading penn it, the developer shall enter into a Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be encountered during construction. The Agreement will further contain P{'clldll~a Cultllral RC'sollrr:e..\' . n:'menda ROllll fJfl,ui.\',?,lo Mission !/J{Ihm.y Post Office Box 218.1'1<-mccuhl, CA 92592 Sno'ed l\' The DU~lI Tru,\'J(!d Untu Our Om' Alld If'll" fhmor We Rise' '/i., The Nt:p.d RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1:34PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #399; PAGE 6 10/28/2005 13:22 FAX 9095069491 PECHANGA CULTURAL Pechanga comment letter to the County of Riverside Planning Department RE: Comments on Draft Focused EIR for the T emecula Rcgional Hospital Page 5 provisions of tribal monitors and address compensation for the Native American monitors being paid by the developers. 5. All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and preserved. ~ 006/006 The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with the applicant, the City of Temeeula Planning Department and other interested agencies in protecting the invaluable Luiseiio cultural resources found in thc Project area. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 308-9295 or Laura Miranda at (951) 676.2768, Ext. 2137. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Sincerely, ~1L t' !jJJ/i Stephanie Gordin Cultural Analyst __.Lu Pechall:!o ell/lUral Rc!.'iOlIll.'e... . Tl!11U!l:ula Band f~f".Ili.\'l!li() Mission IlIdian.\' Post Office Box 2183. Temcclllt7. C191591 SO('I"(>d It 'I1,e f)rJly '['rutleyl U"lo (JIJr Core Am[ With 110"01' Jt(' IU~e 1(, The N('ed e e e ~ " I ~~ ............. - Department of Toxic Substances Control . Alan C. Uoyd, Ph.D. Agency Secretary CaVEPA 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 . Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor I{OJ [E @ [E a W [E ffll !R1 OCT 2 0 2005 @ October 14, 2005 Mr. Emery J. Papp City of T emecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 By NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2005031017) Dear Mr. Papp: . The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above-mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: "A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately 408,odO square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. " Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has comments as follow: 1) The EIR should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. 2) The EIR should identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether . conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the databases of some of the -regulatory agencies: . . National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). &\ n"':~I_'" __ .....__.._._... ....____ , . Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 2 e . Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CaISites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances. Control. . Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. . Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLlS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. . Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. e . Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLlC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. . Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. . The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 3) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing qr potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance .. with state regulations, policies, and laws. ,., M". e e . Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 3 4) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including Phase I and II investigations, should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found should be clearly summarized in a table. .5) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction, and overseen by a regulatory agency. 6) If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, except for a gas station, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone Property. 7) If building structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas or other structures are planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations, policies, and laws. 8) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another location, Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 9) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by the appropriate govemment agency might have to be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. . , . e Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 4 10) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). 11) If it is detennined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite, or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required. If so; the facility should contact DTSC at (818) 551-2171 to initiate pre application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility. 12) If it is detennined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. 13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. e 14) If the project plans include discharging wastewater to storm drain, you may be required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board. 15) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the EIR should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. 16) If the site was and/or is used for agricultural activities, onsite soils may contain pesticide, herbicides and agricultural chemical residue. Proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to construction of the project. DTSC provides guidance for cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program _ (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at . www.dtsc.ca.gov. , . e . . Mr. Emery J. Papp October 14, 2005 Page 5 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Joseph Cully, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email atjcully@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, ff;~ Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse . . P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Mr. GuentherW. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 CEQA #1179 ,-...... Ih 'e ---- I r-{I: , 2:P ....,~ Riverside County &gional Cvmplex 4080-lemon Street, 3rJ Floor. Riverside, California Mailing Address: Post Offiu Box 12008 . Riversitk, CaIiftrnia 92502-2208 Phone (951) 787-7141 . Fax (951) 787-7920. www.rctc.org iverside Counry ransportation vmmission October 4, 2005 . - :: " ., . - -: ,- "'~--'-~-'-~ Mr. Emery J. Papp Senior Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 fO)~@~ow~rm Illli OCT 1 3 2005 ~ By Subject: Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project (SCH No. 2005031017) Dear Mr. Papp: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) received a copy of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project in the City of Temecula on September 29, 2005 and are providing you with the following comments: . . 1. RCTC is concerned about any potential impacts to State Route 79 (SR-79) and Interstate 15 (1-15). Most of the impacts are expected to occur at driveways entering. onto SR-79 and local streets such as De Portola Road as well as other nearby roadway intersections. Several mitigation measures are listed in Section 4.6 (Transportation) pages 4-93 through 4-95 and again on pages 1-15 and 1-16 and pages 1-18 through 1-20 of the Executive Summary, which would alleviate potential impacts. RCTC supports the City's requirement for these mitigation measures. Please ensure that all mitigation measures are implemented both during and after construction. 2. Will "Preemption" of local traffic signals be used for emergency vehicles entering and exiting the hospital, especially ambulances approaching the Emergency Room? Will emergency vehicles use the main entrance way at SR-79 or will they have a separate designated access? 3. Will an Emergency Operations Plan be prepared that will outline procedures to evacuate the facility during a disaster emergency? Would all the evacuation traffic be forced onto 1-1 5? 4. The Hospital is defined as a Regional Facility. The new MRI, cancer treatment facilities and Fitness Center will draw patients from a broad area. Have the cumulative impacts of these potential traffic generators been fully evaluated to determine that all necessary and appropriate measures are included before final project approval? Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project (SCH No. 2005031017) Page -2- e 5. The Draft Focused EIR indicates that adequate parking will be provided (1,278 spaces on surface lots). What about employee parking? Is it included in the 1,278 space total? What measures will be put into place to prevent employees from parking in the surrounding neighborhood? 6. In the future, the hospital surface lot parking areas could be absorbed by expansion projects. Will the future parking demand be fulfilled by parking structures and has any preliminary thought been given as to where these structures might be? Access and visual impacts are usually significant impacts associated with parking structures and should be given early consideration. 7. There are many other residential and commercial development projects near the Hospital project area and RCTC would like to see that all of this ongoing effort is closely coordinated. Coordinate directly with Caltrans. concerning SR-79 and 1-15 for this project. Contact John Pagano, Caltrans IGR Coordinator, at (909) 383- 6327. This concludes RCTC's comments. Should you have any questions or require additional _ information, please contact Bechtel Measure "A" Project Coordinator, Gus~avo Quintero, at ,., (951) 787-7935. Thank you for giving RCTC the opportunity to comment on your Draft Focused EIR. JjelY, l~'d;L .. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission Cc: John Pagano, Caltrans 08 Bill Hughes, Mike Davis, Gustavo Quintero- Bechtel e M :\Environmental Reviews Non-Proiect\ 1 00305DEIRT emeculaHosoitalProiec.doc S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor September 26, 2005 OCTO 3 2005 Emery J. Papp City of Temecula 432()0 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Temecula Regional Hospital (EIR) SCH#2005031017 Dear Emery J. Papp: .~'f~ .~~"''''~''-':'f, i * i :5_~ ~ ~ 'i1a.~ ~.g '4~OFCA~ Sean Walsh' Director We have reviewed your shortened review request and have determined that it is consistent with . the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for . shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code. e . . . The shortened review period for an EIR shall not be less than 30 days. The review process for the referenced project will start on 09/28/2005 and end on 10/28/2005. If you have any questions, please contact Scott Morgan at (916)445-0613. fi ?-1r- ~erryRoberts . . Director cc: file . 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3Q44 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 958J.2..3Q44 TEL (916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov . . i AlTAbHMENT NO. 10 i AUTHORIZATION OF SHORiENEDPUBLlC REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR '. , R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 TemeculaRegiohtll }I~sjiit~l\PC .11-16-qS:\PC-Sr~FFJ}gpq:Rt~ I ~ 16-05 v2.doc ,__ ~~:_::.:~_ J4"5 . _ ::,'}i' :: :I..:-iFLgc..-:..c..----- _ .<;..:.;;.:.;;:a.;~~i.~,;>:.;.;.,,- ';>j_~ --~ " ~:~:':~::; -:-~--:~?iii;t.;,':' ~- ';';-'''''\~'_'' - ;;;;.J;:;Li,,;;..--" '~y>.~: ."-C):/:-\it . S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit .~~~ 1* i ~.,,~ .f ">:, .......... "l:DFuuf01" Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Sean Walsh. Director September 26, 2005 Emery J. Papp City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 OCT 0 3 Z005 RE: Temecula Regional Hospital (ElR) SCH#200503l 017 Dear Emery J. Papp: We have reviewed your shortened review request and have determined that it is consistent with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code. . The shortened review period for an EIR shall not be less than 30 days. The review process for the referenced project will start on 09/28/2005 and end on 10/28/2005, If you have any questions, please contact Scott Morgan at (916) 445-0613. "?-~1~ ~erry Roberts Director cc: file . 1400 TENTH STREET p,o, BOX 3Q44 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812.3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 WWW.opr.ca.gov ,. ,( Shortened Review Request Form Form E (To be filled out and signed by the Lead Agency and submitted with DEIR or Negative Declaration to SCH) e To: State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 From: CITY OF TEMECULA LeadAgency: 43200 Business Park Drive Address Temecula, CA 92590 Phone #: (951 ) 694-6400 SCH # 2005031017 Contact: KHERY J. PAPP, AICP SENIOR PLANNER Project Title: TEKECOLA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Project Location: TEKECOLA City RIVERSIDE County Explain "exceptional circumstances" (CEQA, Section 15205(d)) for requesting a shortened review: An initial study (SGB #2005031017) for this proiect was previously released for public review and comment ..with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was March 8, 2005 through The scope o. April 6, 2005. No Sta.te Agencies commented on the original Initial Study. the project has not.changed; however, the City is now recommendiBg that a Focused EIR be prepared. The attacbed 1etter was sen.t: to agencies requesting their authorization for a shortened. review. The City received no responses to this letter. List responsible and trustee state agencies, as well as any agencies tl1at have commented on the project (Indicate whether the Respon- sible and Trustee Agencies have granted approval for this shortened review): Native American Heritage Commission 8/15/05 No comment concerning shortened request Riverside Transit Agency 8/19/05 Pechanga Cultural Resources 8/29/05 No comment concerning shortened request No comment concerning shortened request As designated representative for the lead agency, I verify. in their behalf, that there is no "statewide, regional, or areawide significance" to this project .Length of review being requested: 30 days b':l/Z-{,/OS r . Today's Date KHERY J. PAPP Print Name ~1,fYf e Revised January 2004 :;s _,t. J City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive. Temecula, CA 92590 . Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 . Temecula. CA 92589-9033 (951) 694-6400. FAX (951) 694-6477 August 2, 2005 Trustee and Responsible Agencies Subject: Request for Shortened Review of a Draft Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project Dear Agency: The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. The City of Temecula is requesting a shortened (30-Day) review of the EIR for this. project. The shortened review is being requested because at a scoping session, held on April 20, 2005 where the City heard public i11put and . testimony, the. City. determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential impacts. identified in the . attached NOP should be prepared for this project. Furthermore, an Initial Study (SCH it 2005031017) for this project was previously released for public review and comment with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was March 8, 2005 through April 6, 2005. No State Agencies commented on the original Initial Study. Comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been addressed. The scope of the project has not changed; however, the City is now recommending that a Focused EIR be prepared. Pursuant to Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Temecula believes that the project is not of statewide, regional, or area wide significance, as defined in Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the City of. T emecula is requesting that your agency approve the request for a shortened review period for this project. We respectfully request that your agency provide written approval of the request for a shortened review period to Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner, City of Temecula, by August 15, 2005. If I may be of any assistance, please call me at (951) 694-6400, or via e-mail at emerv.DaDD@citvoftemecula.oro. Thank you for your consideration and quick response to this request. z~~' / Ilf ~e~J~PP' krcp ~ Senior Planner Attachments: Notice of Preparation Initial Study . cc: (Continued on next page) ) :Ie U PI2OO4Ill4-0463 remecula Regional HospitallShorlened Review ReqUest. Agencies.doc ~ , ) State: , e CA Department of Fish & Game . Regional Water Quality Control Board . State Clearinghouse CA Department of Water Resources Federal: Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Bureau of Land Management Reciional: South Coast Air Quality Management District Westem Riverside Council of Governments Riverside Countv: Airport Land Use Commission Flood Control and Water Conservation District Health Department Planning Department . Habitat Conservation Agency Riverside Transit Agency Transportation. Department e Utilities: Eastern Municipal Water District Inland Valley Cablevision Rancho California Water District . Southern Caiifornia Gas Southern Califomia Edison Temecu1a Valley School District Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Verizon Other: Pechanga Indian Reservation Eastern Information Center Local Agency Formation Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission e R~C U f'I2OO4I04.0463 Temecula Regional HospitaJIShor1ened Review Request - Agencies.doc , .' ,City of Temecula ~anningDepartment . SCH # 2005031017 . , Notice of Completion Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital P A04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change: P A04-0463 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and PA04-057I Tentative Parcel Map Lead Agency: City of Temecula Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive Ci : Temecula, CA Zi: 92590 Project Location City of Temecula, Riverside County Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No,: 920-100-001 through 13 Total Acres: 35.31 CEQA Document Type [ ]NOP [ ]Earl Consultation Local Action Type [ ]GeneraIPlan Update [X]General Plan Amendment [ ]General Plan Element [ ]Community Plan ]Other velopment Type [JResidential: Units_ Acres [ ]Water Facilities: Type [X]Office: . Sq.ft.140,000 Acres 35.31 Employees_ []Commercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres Employees_ []Indtistrial: . Sq.ft._ Acres_ Employees_ [ ]Educational: [ ]Recreational: [X]Other: Hos ital 408 160 S . Ft,' Cancer Center 10 000 S Project Issues Discussed in Document' [X]AestheticIVisual [ JFlood PlainlFlooding [ ]SchoolslUniversities [ I Water Quality [ ]Agricultural Land [ ]Forest LandIFire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [X]Water supply/groundwater [X]Air Quality [ ]GeologiclSeismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetIandIRiparian [ ]ArcheologicallHistorical [ ]Minerals [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife. [ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing. [ ]DrainagelAbsorption [ ]PopulationIHousing Balances[ ]ToxiclHazardous [X]Land Use [ ]Economic/Jobs [ ]Public ServiceslFacilities [X]Traffic/Circulation [X]Cumulative Effects [ ]Fiscal [ ]RecreationlParks [ lYe etation [. ]Other: Li ht & Glare Present Land Use: Vacant Current Zoning: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) General Plan Use: Professional Office Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9) Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office nd DePortola Road Planned Development Oveilay (PDO-a) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development verlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and edical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitatfon center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Ma is a re uest to consolidate ei ht a lots into one 1 arcel. Mail to: State Clearinghouse. 1400 Tenth Street. Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613 Contact Person: Emery J. Papp Title: Senior Planner Phone: (951) 694-6400 Within 2 miles State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 South Airports: N/A Waterways: Temecula Creek Railways: None Schools: Sparkman Elementary, Rancho Community (private school under construction) [ ]Negative Declaration [X]Draft EIR [ ]Supplement EIR []Subs uent EIR [ ]EIR (Prior SCH #) [ ]Other [ ISpecific Plan [ ]Master Plan [ ]planned Unit Development [X]Site PlanIPlot Plan [X]Rezone [ lPrezone [X]Use Permits [X]Subdivision of Land [ ]Annexation [ ]Redevelopment [ ]Coastal Permit [ ]City Development Project MGD_ [ ]Transportation Type [ ]Mining: Mineral [ ]Power: Type [ ]Waste Treatment: T~ [ ]Hazardous Waste: Type Ft.. Fitness Center 8 000 S Ft. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\NOTICE OF COMPLETION FEIR 09-26-05.doc REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST KEY S=Document sent by lead agency X=Document sent by SCH T =Suggested distribution . Resources Agency BoatingIW aterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Conservation Fish and Game Forestry Office of Historic Preservation Parks and Recreation Reclamation S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission ~ Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation, & Housing ~ Aeronautics l California Highway Patrol l Caltrans District No. ~ ~ Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters) Housing & Community Development Other .., State & Consumer Services General Services aLA (Schools) ...I Environmental Affairs Air Resources Board ~ APCD/AQMD ~ California Waste Management Board SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Delta Unit ...I SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB:. Water Rights ~ Regional WQCB# 9 ( ) Youth & Adult Corrections Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission l Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Land Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare l Health Services. e ~ Public Review Period: S-. Do'Z; 28,. 2005 Signature . / 1. f.~ Ending Date: October 28, 2005 Date September 23, 2005 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Emery J. papp, AICP Phone (951) 694-6400 For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH . Clearance Date Notes: Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable): Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc. Address 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, P A 19406 Phone (610) 768-3300 ~.~ ~T _~^_..^. "'............ _ _L T'Oo__'___' H___'._.u......'f'YF'T1 nu.....nJ.ADT UTTt"\.tl.l riI::ro (\(L'),.;:_n,..1...... ~~:~c ,,---- ....- ~.'e '. . ATT~CHMENTNO, 11 , NOTICE OF COMPLETION/NOjflCE OF AVAILABILITY OF' A DRAFT EIR R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 TemeculaRegfcinal Hgspital\PC 11"';16;P!si -~, ~ . 0::-,'.,._,;.,.-.,.......,.:- ':':" l-:.p- -:<-,,:>'"l"-'>y"".if ::-~'"- ~" . ~ __~ ,. '>-..--' "-'~"-.-':~ .AFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2?"" . ..".~ _~~ ,~ _ -:;--i:~Li~~i~~f ~~-~~~i~~:i,L e TO: Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations DATE: September 26, 2005 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency for a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project. Preparation of this EIR is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of an EIR is to provide decision makers, public agencies, and the general public with an objective and informative document that facilitates a basic understanding of the proposed project, including direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects. The EIR also identifies feasible mitigation measures to mitigate significant environmental effects. The City of Temecula will use the EIR to obtain permits, agreements, and approvals from necessary agencies to implement the portions of the project under their respective authorities. . Proposed Proiect The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9) Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of the roof area of the hospital. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. Proiect Location The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road (Assessor's Parcel No.: 920-100-001 through 13) City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. . SiQnificant Environmental Effects of the Proiect The Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the project indicates that approval and construction of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in unavoidable significant impacts with regard to Air Quality, Noise (related to helicopter flights), and Traffic and Circulation. Implementation of mitigation measures specified in the Draft Focused EIR will reduce significant issues related to Aesthetics (light and glare), Noise (hospital operations), and Transportation, Impacts considered in the Draft Focused EIR but found to be less than significant include: Aesthetics (visual character or quality), Air Quality (odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies), Hydrology and Water Quality, and Land Use and Planning. In all other areas of environmental concern, the project was found to result in either no impact or a less than significant impact. Pursuant to Section 150879(c)(6) of the CEQA guidelines, no site in or adjacent to the project location is listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances List (Cortese List).' 1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site list (Cortese Ust). Located at hltp://www.dtsc.ca.aov/Calsites/. August 28, 2004. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\NOA 09-26'{)5.doc Public Review Period The Draft Focused EIR is available for public review and comment from September 28, 2005 .. through October 28, 2005. All comments on the Draft Focused EIR must be in writing and _ should be sent to Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner, City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92592. Mr. Papp can also be contacted by phone at (951) 694-6400, by fax at (951) 694-6477, and bye-mail at emerv.papp@citvoftemecula.orq. Copies of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, and available for public inspection at the Temecula Library, located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula. e e R:\C U P\2004\04.Q463 T emecula Regional Hospilal\NOA 09-26-05.doc 2 "City of Temecula Planning Department ~H#2005031017 . .. . Notice of Completion Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital P A04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; P A04-0463 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and P A04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map Lead Agency: City of Temecula . Street Address: 43200 Bnsiness Park Drive Ci : Temecula, CA Zi: 92590 Project Location City of Temecula, Riverside County Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No.: 920-100-001 through 13 Total Acres: 35.31 CEQA Docnment Type [ ]NOP [ ]Earl Consultation Local Action Type [ ]General"Plan Update [X]General Plan Amendment [ IGeneral Plan Element [ ]Community Plan ]Other evelopment Type ]Residential: Units_ Acres [ ]Water Facilities: Type [X]Office: Sq.ft,140.ooo Acres 35.31 Employees~ []Commercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres Employees_ []Indtistrial: . Sq.ft,_ Acres_ Employees_ [ ]Educational: [ ]Recreational: [X]Other: Hos ital408 160 S . Ft.. Cancer Center 10 OOOS Projeet Issues Discussed iu Document - [X]AestheticNisual [ ]F100d PlainlFlooding [ ]Schools/Universities [ ] Water Quality [ ]Agricultural Land [ ]Forest Land/Fire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [X]Water supply/groundwater [X]Air Quality. [ ]GeologiclSeismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ ]Wetland/Riparian [ ]ArcheologicallHistorical [- ]Minerals [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife [ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing [ ]DrainageJAbsorption [ ]PopulationIHousing Balances[ ]ToxiclHazardous [X]Land Use [ ]EconomiclJobs [ ]Public ServiceslFacilities [X]Traffic/Circulation [X]Cumulative Effects [ ]Fiscal [ ]RecreationiParks [ lYe etation [ ]Other: Lit & Glare Present Laud Use: Vacant Current Zoning: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDQ-8) General Plan Use: Professional Office Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9) Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Ovenay (pDO-a) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development verlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and edical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Ma is a re uest to consolidate ei ht a lots into one 1 arcel. Mail to: State Clearinghouse. 1400 Tenth Street. Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613 Contact Person: Emery J. Papp Title: Senior Planner Phone: (951) 694-6400 Within 2 miles State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 South Airports: N/ A Waterways: Temecula Creek Railways: None Schools: Sparkman Elementary, Rancho Community (private school under construction) t ]Negative Declaration [X]Draft EIR [ ]Supplement EIR []Subs uent EIR [ ]EIR (prior SCH #) [ ]Other [ ISpecific Plan [ ]Master Plan [ ]Planned Unit Development [X]Site PlanlPlot Plan [X]Rezone [ ]Prezone [X]Use Permits [X]Subdivision of Land [ ]Annexation [ ]Redevelopment [ ]Coastal Permit [ ]City Development Project MGD_ [ ]Transportation Type [ ]Mining: Mineral [ ]Power: Type [ ]Waste Treatment: Type [ ]Hazardous Waste: Type Ft.. Fitness Center 8 000 S Ft. RIC U 1'12004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallNOTICE OF COMPlETION FEIR 09-26-05,doc REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST Resources Agency BoatinglWaterways Coastal Commission . Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board . Conservation Fish and Game Forestry Office .of Historic Preservation Parks and Recreation Reclamation S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission ....I. Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation, & Housing ....I. Aeronautics L California Highway Patrol L Caltrans District No. -L ....I. Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters) Housing & Community Development Other "State & Consumer Services General Services aLA (Schools) -I ....I. Public Review Period: KEY S=Document sentby lead agency X=Document sent by SCH T=Suggested distribution Environmental Affairs Air Resources Board ....I. APCD/AQMD ....I. California Waste Management Board SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Delta Unit -I SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB:. Water Rights ....I. Regional WQCB# 9 ( ) Youth & Adult Corrections Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission ..L Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Land Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Food & Agriculture . Health & Welfare. L Health Services. e Ending Date: October 28, 2005 S-'D'~28.' 2005 Signature / 1. fl"#- Date September 23, 2005 For SCH Use Ouly: Date Received al SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH . Clearance Date Notes: Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable): City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Emery J. papp. AICP Phone (951) 694-6400 Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc. Address 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Phone (610) 768-3300 n_.I""T1 n.'....\i\A'nA nAL'" <r______._ n_""':___1 1I___:.._1\"1rYf'll"''C nCi""rn....DT Ul'JflM Ccm (KL')';;J\'. tliV' e e D-8 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 THE CALIFORNIAN . CITY OF TEMECULA . DATE: September 26;2005 TO: Responsible Agencies" Interested, PartIes, and Organizations SUBJECT: NOnCE OFCOMPLETlONlNOnCE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TE~ECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJEC~ The c~. of Temecula Is the: lead Agel'9' for a Focused Envi~nmental Impact RePQrt EIR) for the prOPOSed Temecufa Regional Hospital Project. Preparation of this El ' is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}.. The pu~ of an EIR Is to provide decISion makers, pI,lbllc a.gencies, and the generalpubrlc with an objective and lnformative documenl that facilitates a basic understandIng of the p'[9posed p'roJect, including direct~ Indirect, and cumulative environmental effects. The EtA-also identifies feasible mltlgatlonmeasures to mit- iQate significant environmental effects. The City of Temecula will use the EIR to Obtain permits, agreements, and approvals from necessary agencies to Implement the pol'lions Of the project under Inelr respective authorities. Proposed Project. ' Ti'Le 'prop-osed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change. (PDQ-9) Devel!)pment Plan, Conditiolial Use Permit a TentatiVe Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a reQuesl to elimi Z2 overlay area from the General Plat!. which currently limits the helg gs along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Lone Chan.gE e is a reQuest to cha IOBfrom P'rolessional Office and DePortola RoadPlanned Develoome (P 0-8) to Temecula HospllaJPlanned Development Overlay lPOO-9). e p~ed PDD-9 altowsa height up to 115 feet for 30"10 of the roof aream the hospitaL:The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 ~uare feet of hospltalI medical offiC!l, cancer center a.nd a flfliess center space on 35.31 actes.The Ten ative Parcel Map is a requeSt toconsotidate elghl (8) lots into one (1) parcel. _ ' ." _ ProJect LocaUon. . " , '. '. .., The proposed prolect is located north of HighwaV'79 South south Of DePortola Road and west 'or Margarita Rpad {Assessor's P'arceJ No.: 920-100-001 through 13) City of Temecula, RIverside ~ounty.-Califomla. ' - Significant Environmental Effects of the PfoJect l"tie Draft Focused Envl,ronmentallmpact Report (DEIR) ~pared for the p.~ect . indicates that nd construction of tt:leTemecula Regional Hosp-ita! will resun In unav igniJicant impacts wijh regard to Air Qualiw,-Noise related to helicopter.' and Traffle and OlreulatlOn. Implementation of tion measures the Draft Focu~ EIR will reduce significant IS5 to Aesthetics dgtare), Nolse_(hQM!ital operation~J, and Tran . Impacts consl e the Draft Focused EIR but found to tie less than t Include: Aesthetics (visual character or gualilv), Air QUElliW (odors and c with adop.ted_ plans and policies), HY.drology and Water Quality, and Land Use a Planni!1Q. In. all other areas of envlronfl)ental concern, -the p'roject_ was ,foun!:i to result In either no Imp.act.or a less than significant impact. Pursuant to Section 150879lc)(6Iof the CEQA guidelines, no site In-or adjacent to the prol&ct location is lisle(f-olllhe California D~partment of Toxic Sutistances Coritrof Hazardous Waste and SubstancesLlst (Cortese Ust). . , Public Review Period . ' , - - __ . . The Draft Focl;JSl;!d EIR Is avallable_ {OJPublic review 'and commentifrom Sep:tem- ber 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. All comments on the Draft Focused EIR must be In ~9 and should be sent to Emery J. PapPA Senior Planner, City_of- Temecula 43200 Business Park: Drive Temecula CA 9.<:::592: Mr. Papp can also be contaded bv phone at (951)694-6400, by faxai (951)694-64n, and bye--maU atemery.papP@cltyoflem,eculaorg. . . .. . . Copies of the Dr~ft Focused Environmentallrupact ReP,Qrt are available at the City of Temecuta Planning Dep(l.rtmenl al43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, anct available for p'ubtle In~ion at the Temacula Ubrary, located at 41000 COunty Center Drive, Temacula. . PUB: Se'Ptem~r 28, 2005 . . e ATT~CHMENT NO; 12 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AIDRAF:T ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT "'. R:\C U P\2004\04-Cl:163-Te.mecula RegionalH.ospital\PC.1 1::1.6oJ~~rAFFREPORftl~:16~05 v2.doc _ J~-~ _',,& ~__ . . S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Notice of Preparation August 3, 2005 AUG 1 1 2005 To: Reviewing Agencies Re: Temecula Regional Hospital SCH# 20050310]7 ..~ ,." ~ ~ * 1 Iii ...- ~ \.....?Ift .~ ~.. '.fteDFtA\.\'f\l'- Sean Walsh. Director Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Temecula Region.al Hospital draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 davs of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agencv. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a tinlely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Emery J. Papp City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning. this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613, ' Sincerely, _. ~ .. CCh ~~, ;r-- Scott Morgan Associate Planner, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr,ca.gov SCH# Project Tifle Lead Agency Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Dat.a Base 2005031017 T emecula Regional Hospital Temecula, City of e Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting ot a 320-bed hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately 140.000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8.000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center. all totaling approximately 566,160 square fet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 teet west ot Margarita Road. " lead Agency Contact Name Emery J. Papp Agency City of Temecula Phone (951 ) 694-6400 emall Address City Fax 43200 Business Park Drive T emecula State CA Zip 92590 Project location County Riverside City T emecula Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township N, of Hwy. 79 South / De Portola Road / Margarita Road 920-100-001 through 013 Range Base . Section Proximity to: Highways 1-15, Hwy, 79 S Airports N/A Railways None Watetways Temecula Creek Schools Sparkman ES, Rancho Community (private school under construction Land Use Vacant Z: Protessional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) GP: Professional Office Project Issues AestheticNisual: Air Quality: Water Quality; Water Supply; Landuse; Noise: Traffic/Circulation; Other Issues Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Department of Health Services: Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Water Resources; Office of Historic Preservation: Department of Parks and Recreation: Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics: California Highway Patrol: Caltrans, District 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9 Start of Review 08/03/2005 End of Review 09/01/2005 Date Received 08/03/2005 e o' ~ c: o :> 0 ofe :t 0 ) ~m ) "*0 ) ~~ liiCl: ) C 0'0 I "6> Co Q)O Cl:m t: r: ) /) ) fill 1 ~ ~t ~ E o U ~ .~ E =", 50?; .!:!~ :D" " " 11.'" l. ... ~ J ) ) o .., ... " " o 0 m m m m 0:: <D 0:: E~ ~ ffi ftl 0 1'lI_~ CJ ii: C) =:i 0l!Ii 1:: 0l!Ii:2 .c: Q) ..r:: Q) .!! -g Cl) ~ lLa: LL~ 0..0 . ~ j ~ ~ :/ <( '" Q) <> ~ :::J o '" IE '" .g ;~ 0'" -'5 "'0. C::o E'" ::c:: ..'" UO o o . c:: o c::- 0'" ",<D ,,0:: ,,- T-I~ ","0 omu o-.e >:51:: >..0 o::uz o '" ~ 0::" :!-g 0'" ci~ ,,0:: E" ::'5-. .. .. UC> o c:: o .. '" E E o U '" 0 "'c:: c::., .. '" -'en .!c:: .... -'" 00, Ol c:: ;: c:: .. ii: "iii~U) C::o. .. .E a:: & g>t:. g 0:: >>, 8g~ .em" ~~t5 o E .. a o ~ D: .!! " OJ g " .. 0:: ~ ..x" E.2 I/} ftl::g 0150 oG6~ ~g:g ...OI o ,., o " " Ol <(" ~!? .... ~~ 0-0; ~'" ~ .. o::z n '" ~ ~ 0:: 70 cgJ ci~ \io - ::E "0 UI- ~ .. ~ .. ;; ;: '" Ol " -" iiig 0" "'.e _0 0, . '" 0."5 .... 00 ~ " ;: 0 " CD E " " 0:: o ,., o .. o '" S 8 ,,-'" NQ)BTI mEmc oc.s~ a~"Eu.. :=~g~ D::wocn i'j: " o CD " 0:: ;;; '" ..,0 ",u u-o; Ob ~iii O::U o o ~ ~ ~ :5 '" 00 -1? ~o E 0 ::-~ <3:;; N ~ ~ 70 "o.c liar c:: '" .. 0 -' ::.0 .. 0 u'" <( 0- W Iii o o o c 'w => o I o1l '" c '" ~ f- '(; " o ;;; "E ZCl)CO ~.E~ 1/):; Q) c::..I (I) co C >. ~ =e-g .!: ~~~ ~. o E [" 0> '" f. c:: ~ g ,,-.. o::"'~ ".e " E 1; ~ .. C> 0 Cl..U 0l!Ii.~ m -;.o:B -.... ...C>I " o il ~ ~ '" l" c:: 0 o () i ~ 0:: .0 Q)c~ E" . co. = 0 e><:(cE 04 >..g co E~ _ .cEoeD .! (tI >.e iLl-ED- II o 'ii '" 1ii 'fi .. " oc::'" U 0 ' m.<( E~~ OC::.o ;;E~ ftl 0-- uow "E" .. '" oE "'", iE ~E 0::;;:; o . ",,,, "'" o""ffi o_Co OC> n n n 5!: c:: o 0."6> 0'" .e'" $", -.:tm~ ",c::" ..'" 0.eC:: 010< ~"'" a:~.3 o "E .. o '" ~ .. e " o ~ &1 <( ~O Ol c:: ;: c:: ..0 n:~ . 0 ",,, c::<D .."- ="E "<D 01- o c:: .!! ;;. ~ - ...Q ..,., 5~ O<D -" 0" .;m c.", "0 0'" n ",- _<D gE '~<D 0-, D:E 1:: .- 0' .g. II 0 '" .. E .. Cl '" ..1:06 .!~O:l ...",<D --'" O<D<D .; ~ C Q. O"C "".. Ol'):;; ,., '" i " We c g 0" .!!!:1i c_.., .0 E.... =E~ ..00 00'" e " <D - 00 !:e CJlE c ~o .~ >.-fi Q) U. ~ c 0:: It)m e >. m>m Q)~ Um 0 &D ro a.... c Ie >3; C ~ ~~ a:~u: ~iiiO O::() o 2 o " "e- o. c::'" 2e "" 1::0. 0- c." ",,,, "1:: [" " 1-'" o o e ;; 11. ,., .. ;t -s. ~ x=~ ftl.!;,UJ c: m- oO ~ ~co -.clE o~o 1:5 ~ c Q)"E 0 'e:J (ij n.. E ;;: E 5 81: _~ oaE-6~ Ca.n D> t:: 0-- C iiiC;Z-iij ::J>tt1::J o QI (I) o. :rO:JI ~ 2 "5 o .~ (/) e: <{ c .= -g Q) '5 ro E 0_" t ~~g CO <(~LL 0i5U)'Q ~ -g ~ 15. CD .f~~ 50 ~ u: '" ~ .2 5 j;j 5 .2 ~ l! ~ ffl t:: ro OCQ) ~.2c u..o.o -0 --0 o~o OUlr (1).:;0 ...;.sc OftlC g.~~ !Ee~ o Q,.:;a: 0 D..5: t'""1 B!III iO ';;<D -QE g>O ",.e ,.,g a:~ro anoom '" > '" 0-" og" >"'" ><D" O::U", o '" tl .~ a. e" o.b '" 1Q::g bl- ~~ '" - E:;; o o <D o -= eo ".e ~ .Q g _ 0>.. " > "",- o '" '" 0. a:a c:~ (I) uS:s CQIr 056 ~~ S:-i:2 a 5 D::-J> ~50 o .! '" .. ~ i'E! ;;.. - 0 g>", cc ~ -" ~. .!!E~ ""-' Ci i'b ::t::Q) .. .." o:Ow '0 ~ - c:: o U .. .. o ~ g a; = ~.~ 0:: <DC:: I.. -gu: S 0_ .. x 0 ~ 0" o'E:E.Q -.. '" .B 0 E~ 00:1=;0 o c .Q ro 1:: ., '" c '" ~ f- - o ~ - o ;:: ;;" BE WX ~~ -' ::x ..v 0'" .,.; Q) o o o .. .. " " ~~ <DO OOS - '" .. " - 0 ~() ,,- c>g -.e 0" .", 1::0 ..- 0.:5 .." 00. " .Q ~ <D U) '" <D " l' <D 'ii en ~>-ro i 8:1: C) (I), (I) _wE ~ 1: e A~"> <DO" o",W .. " u ~ .. 00 o sa c:: o 0. :; ~ ~ "E (I) ~ "D .0::: e(l) :; 0i5 mCi) 0 II) E_ a:a U) .xL.!!! 1::(1) :;gffi .E :5 D..~ E (ij"") 'O~5.C:0' E~ ~~3:U -a~ CD .C: CD OQ) oroW(/) .0:::0 _ t""I to: c:: o '0, <D '" " ';;; .. en i > t--.D:: ",0 oil 0- S:~ o::U e " o .0, <D '" "''' '" c:: 0<( O!!l ~:ii I>: en o o <D o c:: !!l '" ';;; ~ e B C ~ o a o _ : ~ g ~ :!: ro " a o 0 _ : 'V':m a: c510 S :n c:!: co Ego S:'tSC~6 CD ... CD 1;__ (ijcout:~ _o.2tt).~ (/)10(/)00 o NN _<D .g~ -" .!!o 0C> -0 '" " c::- f!iD -Ie 'ii.. 0:;; :E 0.. :s~ 2.. Ow -<D "'c:: ~-;:: _ <D _.e Rim 0'" - .g ;; o _<D ~- c::.o .. .. -'" "'E ~,- UI- o o i;; ro ~ S: .. '" " c ~ 32 CDN-E rn -c 0 _:S <D- tuEE v.... :rlY~ oJ~'5 '5.e15. Q)tt)Q) 0>0 c:: o .. '" E '" E "E 8 ro c:: o .!! m ~ ilQ):lli Q) E 00 '000 Eo '" '" .. c:: e .2 g ;; .. c: (1)~ Q) ~ ffi CI) . E Gl OJ:;J .g E ro 1G<t: 0 oE~ 5:0>- >. 0 O. (I) ro ca()~ '0 eel [0-...; (I) .; g ~ U;-~2 g.:-g (l)Ou> OlYZ t""I _ e c o CD " '" "'0 ",g> go ~:ii "'en iI '" - .. o '" '0 - i: o o .. " o ~ o '" - <D <D a:~-ro :>> ~ 5: 1G~'5 5:c5 S ~(ij tu 00":; Uiooo o ... '" ~ ;:: 70,., B~ -" :g:;; ["'" ~-> .... 00 o o - .. "" 5 o e i: o U .. .. u '" c:: :E s: Q) g .ac ~ ~ <D "'U ~~ ~~ I-l!' '(;1- .<( iia ..w O() c:: o ;; "5 Ol " 0:: .. '" 'il ~ v 11. - o i: .. E 1:: .. 0. .. o iI o '" ~ lie " " B2l ui"~ ;m ~e .... 0:;; t- - o ~-~ cd: w. C::' E~ ::" ...e 00 o o .. .. o 2' " 00 >> " c:: <D !!I 0 CD;: Eb w'" .. '(;U <D$ 0" -c :t:<D 00 Ol c:: i: c:: " ii: - o <D " '" " " if E o '" ffl.1:.E -... ~ ro Om~ E:o "V<D i).o:::-ro CJlllIOO .. '" !!l ;:: .. :I: c:: ,., ~ ~ <D .. ~ ~ Q) E-~ ~E~ "0" .z uo o . ,., o c:: .. > Ij ,... c o .;;; 3' " 5 E '" .. l'l Cl l' '" <D "" w ;IE ~~ I 1::'" 0 "0 ~t5-5 ro ~~ail .s::; '" .... on o o '" t- o C o '" <D 1ii '" 0. :::J ;; .. -' c:: o c;, .. 0:: E-fi .. 0 C>'" ",:;1 ",," '!!6 ...0 .... N " o c;, <D 0:: E-~ ..1:: 08 "'''' ""x .!!ffi ...en .... City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Preparation e To: Distribution List (Attached) Subject Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Consulting Firm: P&D Consultants 800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 Contact: Phone Number: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400 Contact: Laura Stetson, AICP Phone Number: (626) 304-0402 The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact reportforthe project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached e materials. A copy of the Initial Study ClL is _ is not) attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Emery Papp at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital Project Location: City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Project Description: A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. e Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Date L:\env\8300s\830Z _ OO\IS\NOP.doc City of Temecula e Planning Department PROJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital DISTRIBUTION DATE: August 2, 2005 CASE PLANNER: Emery J. Papp Agency Distribution List CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety ................................... (x) Fire Department..................................... (x) Sheriff ................,................................... (x) Parks & Recreation (TCSD)................... ( x ) Planning, Advance................................. (x) Public Works.......................................... (x) . STATE: Caltrans ................................................. ( ) Fish & Game.......................................... (x) Mines & Geology ...................................( ) Regional Water Quality Control Bd ........ (x) State Clearinghouse (15 Copies)........... ( x ) Water Resources................................... (x) FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers ...................... (x) Fish and Wildlife Service ....................... (x) Bureau of Land Management ................ ( x ) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District ............ (x) Western Riverside COG ........................ (x) . L: \env\8300s\8302 _00\1 S\NOP .doc RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Airport Land Use Commission............... (x) Engineer................................................ ( ) Flood Control......................................... (x) Health Department................................ (x) Parks and Recreation............................ ( ) Planning Department ............................ (x) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) (x) Riverside Transit Agency...................... (x) Transportation ....................................... (x) CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning ................................................ ( ) UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District ........... ( x ) Inland Valley Cablevision ...................... (x) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ... ( x ) Southern California Gas. . .. .......... (x) Southern California Edison.................... (x) Temecula Valley School District............ (x) Metropolitan Water District.................... ( x ) Verizon .................................................. (x) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ............... (x) Eastern Information Center ................... (x) Local Agency Formation Commission... ( x ) RCTC ................................................... (x) Homeowners' Association ..................... (x) Los Ranchitos Santiago Estates County of San Diego, Planning Dept..... ( ) . Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (attachment) Lead Agency: City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Consulting Firm: P&D Consultants 800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 Contact: Emery J, Papp, Senior Planner Contact: Laura Stetson, AICP Phone Number: (951) 694-6400 Phone Number: (626) 304-0402 Issues to be analyzed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Hospital, as determined by a scoping session held on April 20, 2005 include the following: Aesthetics - Height, massing, and view impacts Air Qualitv - Construction and daily operations Hvdroloav and Groundwater - On-site drainage Land Use and Plannina - General Plan and Zoning Amendments are required Noise Issues - Operations related to helipad and potential for increased traffic related noise e Traffic/Circulation Issues - Potential neighborhood street impacts Proiect Alternatives e f ~;:..- "" ,. ~'i-,_ ~. . .'. ~'-~1: R:\C U 1'\2004\04,-0463 Tem,,"la Keg;onal Hospllal\PC 11-1.6-0t~~'t:FFREPORTlI-16-05 v2.dO(;.._ > : . . . \~:"::.~-~-;'--'?::'~~~i~~::,;",~.-~!.llliL",",,-.o;.. ....-.,_~._ ~~~7r.~:";"'~' .--~~"~~1,'<, . ~":!'~_--,"':;:';'":~-:..:o,;:~~ _",,"- , ,- ATTApHNtENTNO.13 INITIAL STUDY FO~ DRAHEN:YIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Pro'ect Title Lead A enc Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Project Location Project Sponsor's Name and Address General Plan Desi nation Zoning Description of Project Surrounding Land Uses and Setting . Other public agencies whose approval is required Environmental Checklist Temecula Re ional Hos ital Ci of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Eme J. Pa , AICP, Senior Planner 951 694-6400 North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and a roximatel 700 feet west of Mar arita Road UHS of Delaware, Inc. 367 South Gulp Road. King of Prussia, PA 19406 Professional Office PO Existing: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8) Pro osed: Planned Develo ment Overla PDO-9 The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468). The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z-2 overlay designation from the General Plan. The Z-2 designation currently limits the height of buildings to two stories within the project area. The zone change is a request to change the zoning of the project site from Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-8 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center and a helipad space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. This Initial Environmental Study (IES) has been prepared for the hospital and related medical office buildings. While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in the IES and draft Mitigation Monitoring Program with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to a I onl to the non-hos ital facilities. Surrounding land uses include Highway 79 South and single-family residences to the south, single-family residential to the north, professional office, commercial and educational to the west (currently under construction) and existing offices and commercial to the east Temecula Creek is approximately 1000 feet to the south and Interstate 15 is located a roximatel 2 miles to the west Other public agencies which may require approval and/or subsequent permits include: U.S Army Corps (USACE), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG.), U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS.), Cal Trans, Regional Water Quality Control Soard (RWQCS), Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Riverside County Flood Control, Airport Land Use Commission (ALUCl, California State Division of Aeronautics, Riverside County Health De artment R:IC U P\200411J4-0463 T emecula Regional HospitaMnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. x x x x x X X Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: x I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will no be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impacf' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal ze onl the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are. im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired. ~f Signature 1 ~ B/~/ 05 , Date Emery J. PaDD. AICP. Senior Planner Printed name For e R:\C U P\20Q4\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 2 \ \ JIO'oI'.s10I'\icI'O_- - -.--- / " -~ .', . 'po,teJJtl~ny $ig,~!~~~Xnt '1m act; Rot~;nti~ny~ , '.0, Signifl~fti~nless" ' ~W~~tiOrl. loco . oraiet:J~ 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. b. Issues and-5U . rtiil :-jnfOl'Tn~~o'; soJ~s-' Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic hi hwa ? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or uali of the site and its surroundin s? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? .~e_$'s;t~a" Signitit::ant . 1m-aCt, No Im'act X X c. X d. X Comments: 1. a.: No Impact: According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is not located on or near a defined scenic vista, therefore, there will not be an adverse impact on a scenic vista. 1. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The residential areas to the north of the project site currently maintain views of mountain areas such as Palomar Mountain. The proposed project includes two ho~pital bed towers that are 5 and 6 stories high and medical office buildings up to 4 stories. It is anticipated that views of Palomar Mountain will be impacted as a result of the project. The current City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element indicates a Specific Plan Overlay exists on the site that requires all buildings constructed at th;a proposed location be limited to one or two stories. The tallest portion of one of the proposed hospital be:. towers is at more than 100 feet high with the eave line of the top floor at approximately 85 feet. As a result, there is a General Plan Amendment as part of this project that would eliminate the Specific Plan Overlay for the site, leaving the underlying Professional Office zoning district to determine the maximum height requirement. The current Development Code calls out a maximum building height of 75 feet in the Professional Office zone. A Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) is also being proposed for this site only to allow the proposed height bed tower height. The current underlying zoning designation does allow buildings up to 75 feet in height. If the General Plan Land Use Element Specific Plan Overlay were eliminated on this site, the hospital could be constructed to a height of up to 75 feet under current zoning. Impacts to views in the area would riot be additionally impacted by allowing the bed tower to exceed 75 feet. It is recommended that the proposed General Plan Amendment to remove the Specific Plan Overlay and the Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) be evaluated in a Focused Environmental Impact Report to address the impacts to surrounding properties resulting from the proposed height of this project. 1. c: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site is located between a State Highway (79 South) to the south and very low density residential (2.5 acre minimum) to the north. The project site is currently vacant. The residential area immediately north of the project is an area with large-lot single family rural and equestrian homes. The current General Plan Land Use Specific Plan Overlay on the subject property was put in place to protect the residential area from large scale commercial development. Highway 79 South and Margarita Road in the vicinity of the subject project site are commercial corridors. This property is considered to be a suitable location for the proposed project, and there is a demonstrated need for the proposed project in the community. However, the impacts to views and other aesthetic impacts created by the mass of the proposed buildings must be analyzed in a focused EIR for this project as it will require a General Plan Amendment and a zonin. Amendment to obtain approvals for the proposed height. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 3 1. d.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare typically associated with a hospital 4d medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The project will introduce outdoor lighting and is required to mply with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code and Riverside County Ordinance 55. Ordinance 655 requires outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The Development Code and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of one- foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading and circulation areas and a minimum of two-foot candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. In addition, the project includes conditions of approval requiring all outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The two towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors, however as a condition of approval, all windows above the second floor will require glazing and/or tinting in order to reduce the glare. Glazing and/or tinting will reduce the illumination and/or glare from the proposed project. The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. Decorative lighting is allowed, however decorative lighting is required to be shut-off by 11 :00 P.M. By shutting oft decorative lighting at 11 :00 PM, the amount of light and/or glare will be reduced during late evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research from the Mount Palomar Observatory. The following are Mitigation Measures and/or Conditions of Approval that are recommended as a part of the proposed project and will be imposed via condition or agreement, either of which will ensure the impact is mitigated to a less than significant level: . a. Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded, directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be shut-off by 11 :00 P.M. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan detailing the proposed light levels for the entire project site, onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate. c. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at project boundaries. d. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall maintain glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare that is emitted from the upper floors. e. The Applicant shall plant, irrigate as necessary and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15 gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site and include berming or a solid wall with acoustic attenuation along the northern property line and where the project site abuts residential parcels. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels in order to screen aesthetic impacts. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No, 2,doc 4 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Lan Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation a an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: '.,'c- e8WMti~II)', 6igW~2ant" ',,','(jrifact ,:.>~bJM!I~IlY, <$igilificanl_lJnre~ -.-':C:jJiltr'at1otl " 9 ". " Inca ora1ed ,tesS:Than : 6i9hiflc~?t : ,lmacCc""" ;No . 1m: act. a. issuesa~d'Su' rtirf' i~fom,atioh;SoUr'Ce's Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-a ricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use? x b. x c. x Comments: 2. a. b.: No Impact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15- 20 years) the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The project site was historically used for agricultural uses as noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources SUNey Report prepared by CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. During the mid 1800's the project site was cultivated as an agricultural field. Howevera the project site has not been utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuablW agricultural resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of ConseNation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 2. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project could, because of its regional significance, cause other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some remaining agricultural uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and surrounding areas that could be converted to uses other than agricultural, however the conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the proposed project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of San Diego County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the proposed project. Therefore, the growth of the surrounding area is a result of external economic forces rather than the proposed project. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. e R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 5 c. d. e. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. '.: <': .... "<' ';-, . : ....>..- ._~ .J.:....-';' /:::-: .Issu;es~arid}sd . rtiTl :lriformatiO'~:SoJ~~~.-; Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ualit Ian? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existin or ro'ected air uali violation? . Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of eo Ie? :ij~~~n~k!'Yi ' .:'~Ig:~~Rq:~9t ,- .Jm' act: <. __Pqt~_~ti~JI,Y>: Si~mIflH~rt:Ynr~ss ;. -'. '. _~iti~Ati6n > _~Inoo orated", . NO llh.'~ct .: te:s~Th~:rl_ . '. . SjQni~iClint~ ~, .:-.Jrn ace' x b. x x x x Comments: 3. a. - e.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is not able to meet the thresholds established ~ the South Coast Air Quality Management District for clean air standards in the region. The realization of the oject will not obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan goals, but is likely to be in conflict ith the policies established in the Regional Air Quality Plan. The City of Temecula has identified a need in the community for the proposed project and will carefully analyze the merits of the project and weigh them against the air quality goals and objectives for the region in a Focused EIR for the project. An Air Quality Study for the proposed project was prepared by Regulation Compliance inc., Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, December 16, 2004. The study identified two primary areas of concern that may cause potentially significant impacts; construction emissions and operational emissions. The below table summarizes the daily construction emissions for the proposed project. Table 1 Dailv Construction Emissions Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibslday) ROG NOx CO PMlO Construction Emissions 42 266 353 363 Mitigated Construction 42 266 353 184 Emissions SCAQMD Significance 75 100 550 150 Thresholds Exceed Thresholds? NO YES NO YES .e NOx and PMlO emission levels exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels of significance. However, while the NOx and PMlO levels cannot be mitigated to a level that does not exceed the threshold, PMlO can be mitigated to a level much less than without mitigations. R:IC U P\2004104-0463 T emecula Regional Hospita~ln~ial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 6 . The below table summarizes the daily operational emissions for the proposed project. Table 2 Dailv Onerational Emissions Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibslday) ROG NOx CO PM10 Area Source Emissions 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01 Vehicular Source Emissions 81.1 101.64 1071.46 115.4 Total Unmitigated Emissions 81.49 105.47 1073.97 115.41 Unmitigated Area Source 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01 Emissions Mitigated Vehicular Source 76.46 95.13 1002.98 108.01 Emissions Total Mitigated Emissions 76.86 98.96 1005.49 108.02 SCAQMD Significance 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 Thresholds Exceed Thresholds? YES YES YES NO e Table 2 above identifies ROG, NOx and CO as exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds levels of significance. Thee primary generator of operational emissions is from vehicular source emissions. Area source emissions such as heaters, air condition units and other machines are not considered a significant generator of emissions. The study (Regulation Compliance, December 16, 2004) has concluded that the implementation of the project would result in short-term impacts as well as long-term impacts. The short term impacts are a result of the exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx during construction activities. The long term impacts are a result of exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG, CO and PMlO. The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The Environmental Protection Agency designates areas of Ozone (03), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) as either "Does not meet the primary standards", "Cannot be classified", or "Better than national standards". The primary air quality problems in the area are ozone and particular matter. The Basin has been designated as an "extreme" non-attainment area for ozone. The Basin exceeds both the state and federal standards for ozone and both the state and federal standards for particular matter PMlO. The State standard for Ozone (03) is 0.09 parts per million (PPM) for one hour and the Federal standard is 0.12 ppm for one hour. The state standard for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is 0.225 ppm for one hour and the Federal standard is 0.53 ppm annual average. The State and Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO) are 9 ppm and 9.5 ppm respectively averaged over eight (8) hours. The State standard for particular matter (PM10) is 50 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours and the Federal standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours. The Air Quality Management District no longer maintains a station for measuring air quality standards in th.e Temecula area. The closest station to the project site is the Lake Elsinore station, which was used as reference station for the Air Quality Study (Temecula Regional Medical Center, Air Quality Study, December 16,2004). The study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 16 2004) includes language indicating that due R:\C U P\20Q4\04..{)463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 7 to the geographical location and the wind pattern of the area (Elsinore Convergence Zone), Temecula generally maintains cleaner air quality that other parts of Riverside County. -he most productive method for reducing vehicle emissions aim at reducing vehicle miles traveled. Alternative ~odes of transportation, sidewalks, trails, street and parking lot lighting using low-sodium vapor lights, mature trees, drought resistant vegetation, pedestrian signalization and signage at significant intersections adjacent to the project site assist in reducing the impacts from emissions. The above measures are designed into the proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. Transportation Demand Management (TOM) will also be required, which includes incentives for employees utilizing alternative mode of transportation, including preferential parking for car and vanpools, offering flex schedules to employees and encouraging employees to utilize mass transit such as local buses. TOM practices are designed into the proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. The applicant has proposed a Riverside Transit Agency (RT A) bus turn-out along Highway 79 South, which will provide alternative opportunities to employees. The applicant is required to cooperate with RT A and Caltrans to finalize the location and design of the bus stop. The proposed project may potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is considered non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator in regard to the immediate surrounding area. However, the project site may be a significant pollutant generator for the South Coast Air Basin since the basin is currently a non-attainment area. The air quality study identifies the Temecula area as having significantly cleaner air than the other areas in the South Coast Air Basin. The cleaner air in the Temecula area is due to the geographical location and prevailing wind pattern. While the project site is located within a non-attainment area, the project as a stand along project is not considered to emit pollutants considered significant. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the City of .mecula EIR and as specifically discussed below. . The City of Temecula has adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Citywide General Plan Update. The EIR identified various significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution 05-43, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan" on April 12, 2005. The Final EIR includes a statement of overriding consideration for these impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Included as part of the statement of overriding consideration were air quality standards and compliance with SCAQMD air quality plan, The application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change; however these applications request a change to the height of the building only. The applications do not request an intensification of the uses allo'jVed, floor area ratio, or lot coverage of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation within the current General Plan, but is inconsistent with a current Specific Plan overlay for the site which limits development to one or two stories. As a result, a General Plan Amendment is proposed to remove the Specific Plan Overlay designation from the General Plan for the project area. The project is, however, consistent with the development standards (lot coverage and floor area ratio) found in the Development Code. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 50% and the maximum Floor Area Ratio 50%. The project site is 35.31 acres (1,538,118.6 square feet). The project proposes a Lot Coverage of 15.7% (242,975 square feet) and a Floor Area Ratio of 36% (565,260 square feet). If the hospital project was not proposed, the maximum lot coverage of a commercial or other office project on the project site would be 769,059 square feet (50%). The maximum floor area ratio for the project site would also be 769,059 square feet (50%). The proposed project is well below the maximum permitted lot coverage and floor area ratio permitted in the Professional Office zone. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies within the General Plan. .e proposed project is a hospital facility, which will house elderly, ill and others defined as sensitive receptors. _e proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration and could potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Since the proposed project is a hospital facility, it will attract people of age and other ill persons, which may be sensitive to odors, R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 8 . dust and/or other pollutants. The exceedance of thresholds of significance for short-term and long-term air quality impacts due to construction and operation of the proposed project will be evaluated in a Focused EIR that will be prepared for this project. e The following Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures are recommended to be incorporated into the EIR and placed on the following entitlements as a part of the proposed project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map): a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommended mitigation measures set forth in the Air Quality Study prepared by Regulation Compliance Incorporated, dated December 16, 2004. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written proof of the satisfaction of each of the below mitigation measures to the Planning Department. b. The applicant shall properly maintain all waste related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. c. All hazardous materials, bio-hazardous waste, medical service waste and general wastes shall be discarded in compliance with county, state and/or federal regulations. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hospital facility, the Applicant shall submit an approved hazardous waste storage and removal plan from the State of California and/or Riverside County Health Department to the City of Temecula Planning Department. d. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. e. The applicant shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from e the public streets (Dartolo Road, De Portola Road, and Highway 79 South), to promote alternative transportation. f. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Caltrans for a final location, design and type of stage area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. g. The applicant shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TOM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include, but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices and hospital. h. The applicant shall incorporate energy efficiency standards as defined by Title 24 into the project. The applicant shall comply with the latest Title 24 standards. i. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought- resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula. may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust and erosion to be conducted at the Applicant's sole expense. R:\C U P\2004\04-G463 T emecula Regional HospitaJ\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 9 e . . j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the Applicant shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean- fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably possible. k. Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. I. During construction and all grading phases, the project site shall be watered down, to prevent fugitive dust and erosion, in the morning before grading and/or before construction begins and in the evening once construction and/or grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. The applicant shall comply with Rule 403, Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as well as industry accepted best management practices (BMP's). A note with the above information shall be provided on all grading and construction plans and shall be subject to periodic monitoring by City personnel. m. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on-site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Engineer reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the project construction. n. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off-site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. o. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements. p. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant shall post signs on-site limiting construction related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. q. The Applicant shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel (preferably the southeast corner of the project site). r. In addition to the foregoing, all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways shall be treated to. prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, but no less than 3 times per day, not including morning and evening watering. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Daily watering shall include complete coverage of the site. City personnel shall monitor on-site conditions and may from time to time, require additional treatment by the Applicant, at its sole cost. R:\C U P\2004\04-o463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study DRAFT No, 2.doc 10 . s. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by the Applicant at least weekly to ensure continued dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods such as water and roll compaction and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied t<a portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading o. excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered to establish and maintain grass growth, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. City staff shall be advised of the election of treatment made by the Applicant. 1. During the course of the project grading and construction, the Applicant shall sweep adjacent streets and roads so as to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or construction. u. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the Applicant shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. v. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. w. The area disturbed by clearing, grading earth moving, or excavation operations shall be no greater than is necessary for project development so as to prevent excessive or unnecessary amounts of_ dust. . x. All the necessary above control techniques shall be clearly indicated on the project grading and construction plans. Compliance with these measures shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. e R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 11 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? a. b. c. d. f. Comments: ',;~~:,' :~ Issues',andtSu )1in Have a - substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interru tion, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? x x x x x x 4. a. b. c. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: A habitat assessment study was prepared for the project site (Habitat Assessment, Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc., September 14, 2004). The study identified a manmade flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site, which contains riparian vegetation such as willows and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes have also been identified within the man made channel. The habitat within the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The project will be required, as a condition of approval, to construct a vehicular access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may require Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and potentially clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The presence of the flood channel may also require the approval of Riverside County Flood Control. The study (Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc. September 2004) concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed alteration, placement of fill into the channel and the encroachment into jurisdictional areas. However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge. In ~dition, if activity within the channel (or for preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to occur between ril15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols shall be provided to determine e presence/absence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found, the construction of the R:IC U P\2004104-0463 T emecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 12 bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project with Mitigation Measures. . 4. e.: No Impact: The project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery sites. The project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan, including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site has been grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord. 8.16). There are some grasses on the project site, however they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the project site. 4. f.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP. The project site is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic plants as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the Burrowing Owl. The study prepared by Amec (September 14, 2004) concluded that the project site contains grasslands, which is potential habitat suitable for Burrowing Owls. The study recommended future studies prior to issuance of grading permits. The following Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project and enforceable pursuant to the respective entitlement to which each is conditioned: a. The Applicant shall submit documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the city Engineer, indicating the type of permits required to construct the vehicular bridge across the flood channel on the eastern portion of the project site. b. The applicant shall submit written verification from the U.S. Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determining if any further biological studies or clearances are. required. c. Focused surveys for Burrowing Owls are required within one month of any ground disturbing activities. If Burrowing Owls occupy the site, the City of Temecula shall be notified and passive or active relocation of the Owls is required following state and federal protocols. d. The applicant shall construct a bridge using supports outside the channel. e. A qualified biologist is required to be on-site during all pre-construction site preparation of the bridge across the channel. f. In the event any site preparation for the bridge takes place from April 15 through July 15, the applicant shall submit focused studies following standard protocol for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found on-site, the construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. g. In the event any further conditions, mitigation measures or other regulatory requirement is imposed by any other agency with jurisdiction over the project, the City may require further environmental review. . R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 T emecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 13 . CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. b. ,.,' Issue~bnJd'Su "rtin ;:;rhfomlatici~:s6uf~s_ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x _>NO,.:>C' '.--iin~~acL x x c. x d. Comments: 5. a.: No Impact: A Phase I survey (HistoricaVarchaeological resource survey report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004) has been prepared for the proposed project. The survey did not identify any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 on the project site. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 5. b and c.: Less than Significant: The phase I survey did not identify the project site as a potential site for historical resources, including human remains. The archaeology survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact that the surrounding area is known to contain historical and archaeological resources; the project site is not fown to include any sensitive resources. However, given the known sensitive resources discovered within se proximity of the project site, conditions of approval are required. The project site is also a potential site r paleontological resources and conditions of approval are required. . 5. d.: No Impact: The survey did not recognize the project site as a high potential for human remains. The project site was identified as an agricultural area. While there was significant historical activity around the project site, the project site itself is not anticipated to contain human remains. The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project and shall be imposed as enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the project: a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. b. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent authorized by law. c. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities at the applicant's sole cost. d. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided and preserved consistent with this condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in the Mitigation Measure a above. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emeeula Regional Hospila~ln~ial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc 14 e. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the HistoricaVArchaeological Resource Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004 and September 16, 2004 respectively, except as modified by these mitigation measures. . i. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological and Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) shall each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. ii. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates and vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they can be identified and permanently preserved. iii. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires alternative treatment. iv. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. v. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and the city of Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any Pleistocene-age or older sediments/resources are discovered, a program shall be prepared with recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the resources unearthed. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 15 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: ISSliesarid,Su a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involvin : i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42. ii. Stron seismic round shakin ? iii. Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral s readin ,subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ro ert ? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? >:-,,' tEi.#/T;lfan>~ SlgruffCant ' No 1m aCt '" rmact x x x X X X X X x Comments: 6. a. i-iv and c:Less Than Significant Impact: A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the proposed project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA, PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004). The proposed project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The proposed project will not rupture a known fault since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the project site. The Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The site, in its current condition includes subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of structural loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent a negligible corrosive environment with respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive environment with respect to buried metals. The project site has a moderate risk for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor slabs should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement due to soil liquefaction and seismically induced consolidation of soil above the groundwater. The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to a flvel that is less than significant and will be established as enforceable conditions on the entitlements: R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emeeula Regional HospitaMnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 16 a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Geotechnical Exploration, prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 and as stated below without deviation. i. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical. ii. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly compacted fill. The depth of overexcavation should extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on- grade and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed. The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a heavy vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D157) until design finish grades are reached. This earthwork should extend at least four feet beyond building limits, wherever practical. iii. The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill materials, including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials, have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an expansion index of less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill. During the course of grading operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches) may be generated. These materials should not be placed within the compacted fill. iv. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacred-engineered fill should b. tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior to sloping. . v. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical engineer with consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design. vi. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be removed/scarified; moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on Test Method D1557. The upper 12-inch densification should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base material and not during the initial grading operation. vii. As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial deposits underlie the site. As such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can generally be achieved with conventional earthmoving equipment. viii. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects (Appendix E), and City of Temecula standards. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitaf\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 17 6. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including National ~ollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion .>ntrol and best management practices (BMP's). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6. d.: No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies the soils on the project site as ''very low expansion potential" as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004. 6. e.: No Impact: The project site will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available and ap'provals from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District for solid wastes and waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The project will be required to connect to the public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and waste treatment facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 T emeeula Regional Hospila~lnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 18 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. . IssuesancfSu" rtih-; .lciiiirrl1atidn;sdorces ^ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or dis osal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- uarter mile of an existin or ro osed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such Ii. plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro'ect area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro'ect area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Ian? Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Comments: Potentially 1:)ignl~C:~nl ' "-'Im ~abf ',_-',:~ot~1l~~lly} ,<'j).'-' - s1~!iUi~J~_~i;JQI~SS"'-;'~~s's Iran ':!'A~~~ti?I1-; {{':~l~pi~;?ant 'lnco Qrated:y. ;,,, --1m act x x x x 'No 'IrtfiCl x x x x 7. a. b. c.: Less than Significant: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project consists of medical uses and will include the storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials. The proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions (except those discussed in the Air Quality study dated, September 14, 2004), materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit to staff an approved hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 19 . 7. d.: No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, would not result in a significant hazard to .Jfe public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project ~. e.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). There are no other Airports located near the project. 7. f.: No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project does include a private helipad, which will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of patients to other facilities. AS a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and safe. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project, which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local treatment for the injured, especially in the event of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires: No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. The following Mitigation Measures shall be required as part of the proposed project: . a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) that verifies that the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal regulations. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeeula Regional Hospila~lnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 20 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. ~~te~~~alty _: Significat1t:Unless ;_M[tig~~qn;" -~,j"lnCO '-orated :'le'~$_-Jrf~n " "Si~rlificanl . . ':1m ~ac\; NO 'm','act , Issues arni:$il <rtih'~--[infoifuatrSnisOllr~':' Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge re uirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which ermits have been ranted? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in floodin on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of olluted runoff? Otherwise substantiall de rade water uali ? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation ma? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would im ede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? x x x x x x x x x x Comments: 8. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements because the proposed project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards. An Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required if the project proposes the inclusion of discharge or dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged materials within ''waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicant is required to consult with the Department of the Army to determine the appropriate permits required for the construction of an access roadlbridge over/across the flood control channel located the eastern portion of the site. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of th. proposed project. R:\C U P\2004\04..Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial study DRAFT No. 2.doc 21 8. b.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer .Iume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project is required to comply with local velopment standards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and ground water recharge. There is an existing water well, owned and operated by Rancho California Water District (RCWD), adjacent to the project site to the northeast. The City has instructed the applicant to contact the RCWD and request that a Water Supply Assessment be prepared for this project. RCWD has not provided any comments of immediate concern at this time. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. c.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project will include an on-site drainage plan; however it will not alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion " or siltation on-or off-site.'The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project site includes a flood channel, operated and maintained by Riverside County Flood Control. Riverside County Flood Control has been notified of the proposed project and has not submitted a letter of concern at this time. The City of Temecula Public Works Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on- .'1e drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. A less than significant pact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project " 8. e.,f.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project will add a significant amount of impermeable surface area on the project site. As a result, there will be an increased level of runoff during a rain event. The Hydrology and Drainage Analysis for this project indicates that the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. The project will be conditioned to implement Best Management Practices to reduce potential impacts caused by runoff and will be required to implement mitigation measures that are proposed by responsible and trustee agencies. The City recommends that a Water Quality Management Plan be prepared for this project and that impacts related to drainage and potential for polluted runoff be evaluated in a Focused EIR that will be prepared for this project. 8. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. h. i.: No Impact: The proposed project was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan.. Recent improvements to Temecula Creek have resulted in a new 100-year and 500-year flood plain boundary delineation. Temecula Creek, which is the primary drainage course in the immediate area, was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The ~edging of Temecula Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements d dredging was completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood nsurance Rate Maps have been issued (FIRM, Community-Panel Number 060742-0010 B, revised November 20, 1996). The project site is now identified within the 500-year flood area. R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temeeula Regional Hospila~lnijial Study DRAFT No. "2.doc 22 The proposed project site was is located within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD owns the Vail Lake Dam and has submitted to the CitA a Dam Inundation report, which includes language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek. A~ additional study obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996 further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. The FEMA study shows that the dredging of Temecula Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in the event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of Vail Lake Dam. The proposed project will place structures within a 500-year flood hazard area, as identified in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996). The Applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA standards. The proposed project is not anticipated to impede or redirect flood flows. As a condition of approval a drainage plan is required; this plan will address flow and drainage facilities and provide comments and/or recommendation concerning the failure of the Vail Lake Dam. While the current City of Temecula Final EIR identifies the project site as being within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation Area, the recent improvements to Temecula Creek have mitigated this potential impact. A revised Dam Inundation Area for the Vail lake Dam is anticipated to remove the project site from the Dam Inundation Area. A letter dated January 29, 1996 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted floodplain boundaries. The letter and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100-year discharge capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500-year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and letter also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 100-year flood energy grade lines and 1 DO-year flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail Lake Dam is a 51,000 acre feet facility. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Vail Lake is a 51,000 acre-feet facility. The dam is a concrete arch dam with gravity abutment sections. The dam is 4.5 feet thick at the to. and 15 feet thick at the lowest point of the foundation. The top of the dam is a parapet wall at elevation 0 1,482.5 feet. The dam is located to the south east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in partial flooding of the Temecula creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for structure loss, however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant loss of structures or loss of lile, injury or death on the project site. The channelization of the Temecula Creek from Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 4,200 feet downstream of Margarita Road and the construction of additional bridges at both Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita Road have allowed the delineation of the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) to be revised as a result of the updated topographic information along Temecula Creek. This updated information affects the flood plain boundaries and the dam inundation area. With the updated improvements and channelization of Temecula Creek, it is determined that the maximum capacity of Temecula Creek has the capability to accommodate the flow of Vail lake Dam in the event of a dam failure. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. j.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line which would be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 23 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. b. <'lsSue's:arid-:su - ;?&frf:iln:f~rk;~ii*i;~our~s Ph sicall divide an established communi ? Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? :~;: .is Pi:iteJ'tjaUYL~_:~ ",,$k.J01ffCil6t:{fnless ;::::!:kssiXtlan . --::Y,r:Aftig_i!vi;)r>-o,/: : r:-:$ig_~ifiCilnt':~R- olOOo~oratEHf :;f:Jrrf'act LlmliCl: X X c. X Comments: 9. a. c.: No Impact: The proposed project will not divide an established community because the proposed use is compatible and permitted under the current zoning designation and is consistent with the surrounding commercial uses. The proposed project is currently zoned Professional Office (PO) and will not divide an established community or conflict with the applicable land use plan. The long term Vision of the project is planned for office uses, which allows for hospitals and professional offices, to provide services to the community. The project is not subject to, or located within a criteria cell for the adopted habitat conservation plan (MSHCP) or a natural community conservation plan. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan tSHCP) does not identify the project site as a critical site subject to additional studies or review. The posed project includes a General Plan Amendment, which would allow medical and office facilities to xceed the 2 story height limit. Medical and office facilities would be allowed up to six (6) stories if the General Plan Amendment is approved. 9. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site currently maintains two separate zoning designations. There are three lots that abut De Portola Road, which are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The remainder of the project site is zoned Professional Office (PO). The zone change will change the entire project site, including the three lots currently zoned as PDQ-a, to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Qverlay (PDO-X). The proposed project is not consistent with the existing General Plan because the project site is within the Specific Plan Overlay which restricts height on the subject property to one or two stories. A General Plan Amendment has been proposed to remove the Specific Plan Overlay on the property to allow for the proposed height increase. All the permitted uses within the current zoning designation (PO) will still be permitted in PDQ-X; the primary change that would take place as a result of the PDO is the height standard. A maximum of 30% of the total roof area of hospital facilities are permitted to a maximum height of 115 feet. Roof area is defined within the PDO as the portion of the roof above occupied conditional spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall. The project is located along a state highway (Highway 79 South) and there are not any public views that will be impacted as a result of the project. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment will bring the project into compliance with land use policies and development criteria. Compatibility issues will be analyzed in a Focused EIR for this project. . R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 T emeeula Regional Hospila~lnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 24 b. , lssUEis::aM'SIJ' '''(tin friformation:S()uices~ ' Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local eneral lan, s ecific Ian or other land use Ian? :::,p~enti",IY < :Sig'r\ijrq~~f' ~,:lmatL,_< PQte~@I1Y $ig!l!fj,~nfUnlesS Mitigation' fnc(r~'rated 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than 'Signiffcarif 1m act No Im'aet a. x x Comments: 10. a.-b.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are considered of value to the region and/or the state. The proposed project will not result in the loss of a locally- important mineral resource because the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaNnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 25 1. NOISE. Would the project result in: c. 'dssues'and Slt\ Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other a encies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive roundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro'ect? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing withoutthe ro'ect? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the ro'ect area to excessive noise levels? a. x b. x x d. x e. x f. x 11. a.-c..:Potentially Significant Impact: The project site is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road. There are commercial and office uses between the project site and Margarita Road, and residences immediately to the north and across De Portola Road. The state highway forms a separation barrier between the project site and the residences to the south. The City Council of the City of T emecula adopted and codified Ordinance 04-11, which allows helipad facilities in Professional Office Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. The Ordinance states the following: Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures from structure to structure of an existing or designated public or private primary, secondary or high school. Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed public park (measured property line to property line). Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures structure to structure) of an existing or future assembly facility having 500 persons or more seating capacity. Private heliports associates with hospitals shall be exempt from this requirement. . The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall not be located within any required yard area and in no circumstance Shall it be located within (10) feet from all property lines. In addition, a minimum one-hundred (100) foot setback shall be achieved from adjacent residentially properties. R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temeeula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc 26 Ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by rotation of the rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction free. . The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic or inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter. Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from the adjacent residences. The nearest school is Sparkman Elementary (existing) and Rancho Community Church (under construction). Rancho Community Church is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. Sparkmen Elementary is approximately 1,250 feet from the hospital structure. The nearest park is Paloma Del Sol Park, which is approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. The nearest assembly facility to the project site is Rancho Community Church, which, as stated above is approximately 1 ,450 feet from the hospital structure. The helipad is not located within a yard area and the nearest residentially zoned parcel is approximately 460 feet away from the helipad. Conditions of Approval will be in place to ensure the materials and the surrounding lighting and landscaping of the helipad is consistent with Ordinance 04-11. The proposed project consists of a hospital, medical offices, a cancer center and a fitness center totaling approximately 565,260 square feet. The hospital includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories respectively, the medical office buildings are 3 and 4 stories each, the cancer center and the fitness center are both single story. The proposed project also includes a helipad on the northeast portion of the site. The General Plan allows a maximum noise level in residential areas not to exceed 65 decibels for exterior areas and 45 decibels for interior areas. A maximum noise level shall not exceed 70 decibels for internal commercial and office areas. The City of Temecula General Plan and EIR have forecasted noise levels for this area to be up to 74 CNEL at build-out measured 100 feet from Highway 79 South. The setback of the neares:a proposed structure is a medical office building setback 192 feet from the property line abutting Highway 7l:W South. The nearest point of the hospital is setback 310 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 South. The project site is designed to include berming and landscaping along the frontage (Highway 79 South), which will buffer some of the noise. The noise analysis (Regulation Compliance Inc., December 2, 2004) states that the construction of the hospital, office buildings, cancer center and fitness center shall be required to install double-paned windows per title 24 requirements. Said noise analysis also states that structures, including residences with double paned windows will mitigate the majority of potentially significant noise impacts. Compliance with title 24 will mitigate the noise impacts associated with the day to day operation portion of the project. There will be temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during construction activities and during peak hour traffic periods. This will be temporary in nature and are associated with typical commercial development. Hours of operation for construction activities, consistent with the City's noise element in the General Plan will be enforced. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan in 2005 when they approved Resolution 05-43 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan". The General Plan EIR included a statement of overriding considerations, which recognized significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Those impacts related to air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. The information is contained within the current General Plan which was adopted in 2005. The City of Temecula has been consistent with land-use decisions in relation to the current General Plan and therefore the information is deemed reliable. The Mitigation Measures in this initial study shall be required upon the adoption of this initial study and the approv~ of the proposed project as conditions of approval. All Mitigation Measures shall be binding requirements of th"'W' project approval. R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 27 There is a potential that the proposed use will have an influence on vehicular circulation patterns and that the potential exists for additional vehicular traffic to be experienced in the residential areas north of the project site. ahispotential for increased noise on residential streets will be addressed in a Focused EIR prepared for the "oject. . 11.d:Potentially Significant Impact: The General Plan noise element identifies the project site as an area that will exceed the maximum CNEL permitted at build-out. A maximum noise level of 65 CNEL is permitted for hospitals and residential uses and a maximum noise level of 70 for commercial and offices uses. The primary source of permanent noise will be generated from the Highway. The proposed project is required to construct berming with landscaping along the frontage of Highway 79 South to reduce the noise impacts on- site and onto the adjacent residential areas. Additional sources of noise are expected from generators and equipment within the mechanical yard. However the mechanical yard is not located near a residence and includes sound. walls that mitigate the noise levels at the property to a less than significant level at adjacent property lines (Regulation Compliance, Inc., September 14, 2004). Temporary noise levels above the maximum permitted decibels can be expected during construction activities. The following conditions of approval will be required as a part of the proposed projects entitlements as stated in the Noise study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004) and the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR: . a. All construction equipment fixed and/or mobile, including, but not limited to water trucks, cranes, bull dozers, scrapers, and trucks shall be maintained and operated properly, including maintained mufflers. The Applicant and/or contractor shall provide verification of maintenance records prior to issuance of grading permit. b. During all grading and construction activities, the Applicant shall place and maintain a continuous barrier of 6 foot high (or a height as determined acceptable by the Planning Director) sound blankets along both the projects northern property lines and along all the residential properties abutting the project site. c. All stationary construction and permanent operational equipment shall be placed in a location such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors, subject to the approval of the Planning Director (Prior to issuance of grading permit and on-going). d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from noise sensitive receptors, including residences, as practical, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. e. Mechanical equipment including, but not limited to heaters, air-conditioners, air handling units, ventilators, trash compactors, generators, and loading bays shall be screened and/or muffled. In addition, the Applicant shall provide buffers, including enhanced landscaping, berming, and/or structures such as walls for acoustical shielding. f. Emergency generators shall only be used in the event of an emergency power outage and/or for service and maintenance. g. Loading docks shall be enclosed on three sides, include a roof or cover, and face away from residential parcels. Truck arrival and departure hours for loading and unloading shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM. . h. Sirens from emergency vehicles shall be shut off when within 14 mile of the hospital site unless required to allow for emergency access. i. The helicopter flight path shall be limited to commercial areas to the greatest extent possible unless required in emergency situations or if there are no other safe paths of travel. R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temeeula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc 28 j. The Applicant shall comply with Section 21661.5 of the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation Administration. The applicant shall submit written correspondence from the appropriate agencies detailing requirements and approvals from the appropriate agencies prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the helipad. - k. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday No work is permitted on Sundays or Federal/State Government Holidays 11. e.-f.:Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed is not located in an Airport Land Use Plan area and there is not an airport, public or private within 2 miles of the proposed project. However, the project proposes to construct a helipad used for transporting patients to trauma centers at other locations. There is no method available to quantify the number of helicopter trips related to the hospital operations as a result of trauma. Noise impacts on neighboring residents and equestrian uses should be analyzed in a Focused EIR prepared for the project to determine the effects of helicopter noise on the surrounding area. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospitat\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 29 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. co-.' . < - . .-" Issues,-cirid,Su Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of re lacement housin elsewhere? x b. x c. x Comments: 12. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is a regional facility, which will add additional medical services to the region. As a result the proposed project could potentially cause additional growth in the surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth (residential and commercial) since the mid 1980's without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding community is nearly built-out with residential dwellings. The proposed project therefore, is not anticipated to induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has already occurred over the last 10-20 years. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. .. b.-c.: No Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The .oject site includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center; residential uses are not proposed. The project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or remove/replace existing housing. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeeula Regional HospilaMnitial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc 30 a. -. ....,. , _ JssuesarntSu' rt,ih' "lnfcirrnatiOiiSources Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: :rtQletltlal!y Sfti~!fl.c~(~f 1m 'aCt .. ..' potenti~lIy Signj~~nt:(Jnle~ )M~i~~tion" ~ - ,.../ltlcO. orated _ ~. . . Less.:(han> S1gilitl.cant i6l"aCt 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. No Imatt x Fire rotection? Police rotection? Schools? Parks? Other ublic facilities? x X X X X Comments: 13. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will provide additional public services available to the community and general public. The project will also provide better emergency medical response and allow for better transport of medical emergencies. The project will contribute fair share contributions through City Development Impact Fees to be used to prOVide. public facilities and infrastructure. The project will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain 'Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project. The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual analysis concerning sewer flows form the hospital and the total flow is estimated to be approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge volume, the hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity assuming that all hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VGP) sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service the Applicant is responsible for payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee. Estimated connection fees at this time are approximately $1,540,000 assuming the current connection fees structure of $3,843 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU I.e. 235 gallons per day). The estimated water supply development fee is approximately $120,000. . R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 31 4. RECREATION. a. > IssuEls:arkfSu Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facili would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? _?eO~~ti.ianyc~) 'sigh@~~~[qhless' :~K1itjga~(jo_ ^ '-(nCo' -~ofjit~d" ; -L~s~'if:hah /~:igijift9~nf" No. :-lhf~ai:C - iirlaCt: x b. x Comments: 14. a.: No Impact: The project is a hospital and medical office project in a professional office zone. The project will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. b.: No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational aspect to the project. Furthermore, the project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . . R:\C U Pl2004\04-o463 Temeeula Regional HospitaMnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 32 15. TRANSPORTATlON/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. >'>ii'-,; Issues and,Su , rtin1hfO:im~tt6n'sQuree$ Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or con estion at intersections? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion mana ement a enc for desi nated roads or hi hwa s? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safe risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom atible uses e. ., farm e ui ment? Result in inade uate emer enc access? Result in inade uate arkin ca acit ? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bic cle racks? Comments: pot~n~aUY s!qn!lip~ant ,'1m Ct: , ;;:,"J?qt~ri~liilry '~igijifi(Jant:tJntess: ,'. "'<:Mit,ig,atipo . 'lnco 'rate~ ~, ~l:S~th~n ~ ';:SjQnifl~nt , "Im'att', No .'Im act x x x x x X X . 15. a.-c: Potentially Significant Impact: A traffic analysis and supplemental trip generation information have been prepared for the proposed project; (Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Medical Center, Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004; letter from David E. Prusha to Bill Hughes, November 23, 2004). The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The proposed project consists of approximately 320 bed hospital facility, 407,260 square feet of hospital floor area, 140,000 square feet of medical office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 565,560 square feet. The project will generally be constructed in two phases and will generate a total of 11,458 vehicle trips per day with 865 vehicle trips during the A.M. peak hour and 929 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project evaluated all the intersections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road and De Portola Road. Phase one includes approximately 150 beds for the hospital and 80,000 square. feet of medical office space. Phase one is anticipated to generate approximately 6,290 trips per day with 474 vehicle trips during the peak A.M. hour and 629 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the total trips were assigned to Highway 79 South and 22% were assigned to De Portola Road. As part of the TIA, 17 other cumulative projects in the vicinity of Highway 79 South were included in the study. The cumulative impacts of all these projects when added to the Hospital project will result in a LOS of F in several intersections of the study area as identified in the TIA. The TIA has identified several roadway and intersection improvements, which when implemented could result in a LOS of D or better in the study area intersection. It is important to note that the TIA did not factor in a Dartolo Road connection, which COUld. reduce the impacts to each road and intersection. R:\C U P\2004\04.Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 33 The following Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project: _ior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase I: 1. Modify the proposed traffic signal at the easterly project access (Country Glen) from a three way signal to a four way signal to accommodate access to the project from Highway 79 South. 2. Install sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of the project on Highway 79 South. 3. Improve the intersection of Highway 79 South at Margarita Road to provide an additional eastbound to north bound left-turn pocket (dual left) if this work has not already been completed. 4. Connect an access connection from the project site to De Portola Road. 5. Pay applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). 6. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study area based on the phase I impacts of the project as identified in the TIA. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase II: 1. Connect Dartolo Road from the project site to Margarita Road. 2. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study area based upon the phase II impacts of the project as identified in the TIA. 3. Pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). 4. It should be noted that if the project's DIF and TUMF fees exceed the fair share impact fees of the project, the project will not be responsible for payment of any additional fair share fees for mitigation to off-site intersections, which are affected by the other 17 cumulative projects. Ae City of Temecula City Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the mitigation measures mentioned "-ove upon final review of the final traffic analysis, subject to and as limited by the substitution requirements of the state CEQA Guidelines. Even with proposed mitigation, Level of Service on Highway 79 South and Margarita Road will be operating at a LOS of D or worse during peak periods as a result of the construction of this project. An analysis of cumulative impacts that considers recently approved projects and projects currently being processed along the Highway 79 South corridor must be analyzed in a Focused EIR. 15. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not include the extension, construction or modification of any traffic patterns that would create sharp curves, dangerous intersections or establish incompatible uses that create a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is required to improve intersections and pay fees, however the improvements would not create unsafe public intersections, curves or traffic patterns. 15. e.: No Impact: The proposed project, as conditioned, includes four access points. The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has been provided. In addition, on-site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles. 15. f.: No Impact: The proposed project requires a total of 663 parking spaces. A total of 1,278 parking spaces are provided. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 15. g.: No Impact: The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) has submitted a letter requesting a bus stop facility. The applicant shall comply with the standards and written request as set forth by the RT A. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . . R:\C U Pl2004\04-0463 Temeeula Regional Hospita~Jn~iaJ Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 34 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. , ". Pbt@tiany. . Sigrdf,isaht'LJnless, "Miti9'ctlib~ . In " "otated Less-Them ,.;.:....1 , .'Signiflcant lr:ti"aCf::, No 1m act : -lssues'ilrid:SU rtIn _(nf()rtnatlifris6tireijs;~ Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of a licable Re ional Water Quali Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ex anded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and re ulations related to solid waste? x x x x x x x Comments: 16. a. b. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. The Applicant is required to consult with the sewer purveyor, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to determine what, if any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit a letter from EMWD indicating that current facilities are in place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to provide service to the proposed project. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because the wastewater and treatment systems are already designed to handle this quantity of wastewater. 16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The project may require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the project site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities will be required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control has reviewed the proposed plan and has not submitted any formal comments of concern in regards to District Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. d.: No Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded watee entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has provided ''water R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeeula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 35 available" letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed project, provided the applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. There is a domestic well near that project site, .ned by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). RCWD have been notified of the project; RCWD has not tified the City of any significant issues or concerns for the proposed project. The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regard to permitted uses and policies. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. f. g.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeeula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 36 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: a. b. c. ~ les$:fhln ^' , '.$rgh~Jbanf ,'No ; ,:,'Ifri"'lk:t Jriract , l$sUes~'nd;Su Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a' fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histo or rehisto ? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current roO ects, and the effects of robable future roo ects ? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directl or indirectl ? x x x Comments: 17. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not degrade the quality of the environment on site or ie the vicinity of the project because proposed Mitigation Measures are expected to reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant. The developer will be required to obtain all applicable State and Federal Permits including, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and clearance from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A traffic analysis has been completed and was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify and require traffic calming devices and mitigation measures to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan. 17. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The individual effects from the project are primarily less than significant with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The air quality impacts have been identified as potentially significant impacts. As discussed in the Air Quality section, the project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is designated "extreme" non- attainment area for ozone. The City Council of the City of Temecula has adopted Resolution 05-43, which includes a statement of overriding consideration for air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. Resolution 05-43 identifies these areas that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the build-out of the General Plan. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with the standards required by the General Plan and Development Code, and accordingly the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17. c.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures are required in order to reduce impact to a less than significant level. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 37 . EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier anal ses used. Identil earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'ect. Earlier Analysis: The proposed project was reviewed under the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan adopted by City Council on November 9,1993. Sections 3.0,4.1,4.2,4.4,4.5,4.6, 4.7,4.10,4.11,4.12,4.14,4.17, and 6.0 of the Final EIR for the General Plan, together with the identified technical documents prepared by the Applicant, were relied upon to analyze the proposed project. As a result of the above mentioned sections and technical studies, the conclusion found within this initial study were made. The information relied upon as described above is available at the City of Temecula for review and inspection. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeeula Regional HospitaMnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 38 SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. . 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, November 4,2004 4. Trip Generation for Spring Valley Hospital, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., November 15, 2004 5. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. 6. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment, AMEC, Inc., September 14, 2004 7. Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Temecula Hospital, PSI Inc., May 14, 2004. 8. Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center, Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC Company), November 2004. 10. Paleontological Resource Assessment Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech., September 16, 2004. 11. Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004. . 12. Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 20, 1996. 13. Letter to the Honorable Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson, Riverside County Board of Supervisors from John W. Eldridge, Jr. Acting Director of Mitigation Division of Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX, dated January 25, 1996 14. Inundation Study for Vail Dam, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc., July 1975. 15. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, Regulation Compliance Incorporated, Inc., December 16, 2004 16. City of Temecula Resolution 93-90, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan for the City of T emecula, Adopted November 5, 1993. 17. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH # 2003061041), March 2005. 18. City of Temecula Resolution 05-43, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan," Adopted April 12, 2005. . R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 T emecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc 39 ~-- < i~~ . ATT.6lcHMeNTNO.14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ! APRil 20, 2005 ,. R:\C _~' Pl2004\04'D4:63 TernecLi]a,Reii6p~t!fI>spital\~' ll-l(f . . . MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 20, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Mathewson thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Chairman Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: Commissioner Olhasso. PUBLIC COMMENTS None at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 20, 2005. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 30, 2005. 3 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March, 2005. R:IMinutesPCI04200S MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner . Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from March 2, 2005 4 Planninq Application No. PA04-0393. a Development Plan. submitted bv Currv Brandaw Architects. to construct. establish. and operate a three-storv senior conqreqate care facilitv consistinq of 115 units on 2.1 acres and an exception to the development standards to reduce the onsite parkinq requirements bv 13 spaces. located on the southeast corner of Villaqe Road and Township Road within the Harveston Specific Plan Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (as written). In response to the Planning Commission's queries, Mr. Harris relayed the following: . That if the three retail components listed in staff's report (Beauty Shop, Barber Shop, and Home Health Care) were not to work out, other retail-type uses could be utilized in the spaces . That the proposed redesigned project and the apartment building would be comparable in height. . At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing the applicant, thanked staff for their hard work and thorough staff report. Mr. Alhadeff noted that the proposed project would be a permitted use and that the concerns of massing and elevation, architecture, and the retail component have all been addressed by the applicant. Mr. Garth Brandau, representing the applicant, noted the following: . That at the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant has eliminated the fourth floor resulting in a substantial reduction in the overall height . That the applicant has incorporated retail uses into the facility; noted that the intent of the applicant would be to incorporate a Barber Shop, Beauty Shop, and Home Health Care Center, but that if this were not possible, the applicant would have the ability to acquire other tenants into the facility . That in regard to the concern of architecture, the applicant created a more traditional looking style that would emulate nearby buildings within the Village area . That in addressing the massing issue, the roof lines have been further broken up and lowered along both the Landings and Township Road elevations; and that the widths of the columns have been reduced and four separate color schemes are proposed for the elevations to further segment and break up the building mass. . R:\MinutesPC\04200S 2 /. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the large hip roof and the view the residents on the corner of Township Road and Harveston Drive would have. Understanding Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern, Mr. Brandaw noted that it would be possible to break up the hip roof. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Alhadeff relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to a condition requiring the breaking up the hip on the roof of the proposed project. Ms. Mary Rauschenburg, representing Lennar Communities, spoke in favor of the proposed project; advised that in regard to the lease of the four live/work units of the apartment building, the owner has received interest from four specific uses; and noted that although the Welcome Home Center will be utilized by Lennar Communities for another 18 months, it would be the intent of Lennar that after that period of time, the facility would be used for retail uses. For Ms. Rauschenburg, Chairman Mathewson noted that he would like to see the live/work units come to fruition. The following individuals spoke against the proposed facility for the following reasons: . Mr. Anthony Reiter Mr. Spencer Simm . Mr. Jeffrey Duhaney Ms. Shelley Moon . Mr. Roger Logan Mr. Mike Bender . . Mr. Larry Bales Ms. Stormer Simm . Mr. Kenneth Ray . Mr. Kristopher Williams . That the Isabel Barnet Elementary School will be completely overshadowed by the proposed three-story senior apartment facility . That three-story buildings or higher are not compatible in the Harveston Community, they belong along commercial corridors with similar size buildings . That the value of the homes in Harveston Community will depreciate if the proposed project were allowed . That the amount of emergency services that will be created due to the proposed project will be a nuisance to the residents of Harveston . That the applicant has only made minor changes to the proposed project . That Lennar never advised that a four-story senior congregate care facility would be built in the Harveston Community . That the proposed retirement residence will not be favored by the residents . . That the residents of Harveston are desirous of what was originally promised by Lennar - retail and small town Americana Main Street, U.S.A. . That the proposed project is obtrusive, too tall, unsightly, and unwelcome. R:IMinutesPCI04200S 3 Clarifying for Mr. Bender, Commissioner Telesio noted that he had previously mentioned that if . the initially proposed project were not redesigned in a fashion that would be acceptable to the Planning Commission, the applicant may not be the right applicant. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing the applicant, noted the following: . That the use is a permitted use under the Harveston Specific Plan . That the proposed project will meet the Development standards in terms of lot coverage and setbacks; . That retail will be provided as spelled out in the Specific Plan . That the applicant has made the requested changes as requested by the Planning Commission . That the applicant would be willing to accept a condition that would impose breaking up the long ridge roofline as requested by the Planning Commission. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero thanked the applicant for their efforts in making the requested changes and noted the following: I . That the proposed facility was part of the intent of the Harveston Specific Plan . . That there is a need within the Temecula area to house seniors . That the applicant has addressed the issues that were a concern . That the proposed project is a congregate care facility, not an assisted living facility; and that, therefore, emergency response times would not be the same . That staff will ensure that Lennar Homes will provide was originally proposed . That the Planning Commission would request to change the rooflines. Commissioner Chiniaeff offered the following comments: . That the current four Planning Commissioners were a part of the development of the Harveston Specific Plan and that at that time, it was the vision of Harveston to include residents of all ages including seniors . . That the applicant has made great strides from the time that this project was originally submitted. In closing, Mr. Chiniaeff stated that he would be of the opinion that the applicant has met the intent of the Specific Plan. . R:\MinutesPC\042005 4 ce . . Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that age, medical conditions, race, color or creed are not fa~tors on which housing choices could be based. For the Planning Commission, staff and the public, Commissioner Telesio noted that he has been a part of two ad-hoc committees and has also worked with the applicant and is of the opinion that there have been significant changes from the original plan. In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the retail spaces would not be useable for any residential spaces and that the Specific Plan imposes a number of different retail uses on the project. Thanking the speakers for their comments and the applicant for all their revisions, Chairman Mathewson relayed the following: . That the building has been reduced in height . That on site parking will be provided . That retail uses have been incorporated into the facility . That as long as the retail uses are consistent with the permitted uses, the applicant should be the one determining what the uses would be. Mr. Mathewson commented on the applicant's efforts to address the massing and scale of the proposed project and that based on what is being proposed to the Commission and subject to additional modification to the rooflines, he would be in favor of supporting the project. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the proposed project subject to the addition of a condition, imposing that additional roofline variations shall be incorporated into the building design to reduce the mass and overall height of the ridgelines and that modifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning; that 1,650 square feet of retail space within the facility shall be used exclusively for retail commercial purposes in perpetuity; that the specific type uses shall be consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan; and that the applicant and the Fire Department shall jointly develop a lights and sirens protocol for emergency response vehicle and that the protocol shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief and the Director of Planning. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. At this time, Planning Commission took a five-minute break. R:IMinutesPCI042005 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-022 . PC RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0393, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A THREE-STORY, 115.-UNIT SENIOR CARE CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY WITH THREE RETAIL SPACES ON 2.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VILLAGE ROAD AND TOWNSHIP ROAD WITHIN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ALSO KNOWN AS APN 916-170-027 Continued from April 6, 2005 5 Planninq Application No. PA04-0462. PA04-0463. PA04-0571. a General Plan Amendment, Zone Chanqe. Conditional Use Permit. Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map submitted by Universal Health Systems. Inc. to construct a 320-bed hospital facility and helipad. two medical office buildinqs totalinq approximatelv 140.000 square feet. a 10.000 square foot cancer center, and an 8.000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximatelv 566.160 square feet on 35.31 acres. located on the north side of Hiqhway 79 South and south of DePortola Road. approximatelv 700 feet west of Marqarita Road ) Senior Planner Papp presented a brief staff report (of written record), noting that based on the issues that were discussed and presented to staff via letters from Best, Best, and Krieger, Fish and Wildlife Service, and area residents, it was staff's opinion that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the proposed project to address issues stated in staff's report. . For the Planning Commission, staff, and the public, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that although he was not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 2005, regarding the proposed project, he has listened to the Planning Commission tape and has reviewed all documents that have been presented and understands the concerns that have been raised. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that tonight's Planning Commission meeting will de dealing with noise, aesthetics, traffic, and hydrology. Chairman Mathewson also relayed that once the Notice of Preparation (NaP) is released, there will be another opportunity for the public to comment on the scope of the NOP and that once the focused EIR draft is released, there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on that as well. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's query, Senior Planner Papp relayed that it would be his opinion that the proposed hospital will not have any need for underground tanks but will have above-ground oxygen tanks; that there may be underground storm drains; and that there will be one large back up generator that will be located near the oxygen tanks (east elevation of hospital) . . R:\MinutesPC\042005 6 c_ '. . For Senior Planner Papp, Chairman Mathewson relayed his desire for the scope of the document to not address the source of the leaking tank in great detail. Clarifying for the Commission, Assistant CifY.Attorney Curley relayed that CEQA would address the impact of a project on the environment, not the environment on the project. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: . Mr. Kenneth Ray . Mr. Brad Stormon Mr. Don Stowe Mr. Raymond Bennett . That the narrow residential roads of Santiago Ranchos cannot handle the delivery trucks, trash trucks, ambulances, and patients with appointments . That the Planning Commission consider the request of not approving any plan that would contain any regular open ingress/egress for the hospital site on DePortola Road and any building over three stories . That the traffic impact report on Pio Pico Road must be prepared and should be addressed with the EIR . That a sound wall be installed to protect the residents of Pio Pico Road . That impact to equestrian uses in the area be addressed . That the Planning Commission ensure that the emergency room will not be upgraded to a trauma center at any time. . That the dead-end (southern) portion of Pio Pico Road has not been adequately addressed; that it is the desire of the surrounding residents that the dead-end portion of Pio Pico Road (southern end) be abandoned or sold to the adjacent neighbor. Chairman Mathewson noted that the project description does not include a trauma center. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that an Environmental document assesses a project and that although the concern of the dead-end (southern end) portion of Pio Pico Road would be valid, at this time, circulation is not being planned, advising that this concern would be handled in a different forum than in the EIR. Clarifying for the public and Planning Commission, COlnmissioner Telesio noted that all of Pio Pico Road south of DePortola Road will be addressed in the traffic/circulation portion of the project. At this time, the public hearing was closed. R:IMinutesPCI04200S 7 . For the Planning Commission, Chairman Mathewson queried if staff's report was adequate or if there were any other issues that the Commission would want addressed. For Chairman Mathewson, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that it would be his opinion that staff's report is adequate but requested that staff include the storm drain issue that would run through the proposed property and the impacts if a trauma center were incorporated into the proposed project. Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments and is of the opinion that staff's report is adequate and does reflect the concerns previously mentioned. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that the Commission does not need to vote on this item; that staff will move forward with the Commission's comments and that there will be many opportunities for the public to comment. It was the consensus of the four Planning Commissioner's to receive and file this report. New Items . 6 PlanninQ Application No. PA04-0561 a Development Plan. submitted bv STDR Architects. to construct and operate a 7,380 square foot restaurant. located on 0.42 acres. Qenerallv located approximatelv 800 feet west of MarQarita Road. at the northeast intersection of the Temecula Mall Loop Road and the Mall Access Road that is an extension of Verdes Lane Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (of record) and recommended revisions of the following Conditions of Approval: That the language: As mav be due and pavable bv the Development AQreement, be added to the end of each of the following Conditions . No. 45 DIF . No. 46 TUMPF . No. 50 TUMPF . No. 90 Public Art Ordinance That the cover sheet of Draft Conditions of Approval be revised to as such: MSHCP: Per Development Agreement TUMF: Per Development Agreement . R:\MinutesPC\042005 8 c. COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that the architectural consultant has not reviewed the proposed project and that if it were the desire of the Planning Commission, the proposed project could be forwarded to the architectural consultant for review. Responding to Commissioner Guerriero's concern, Associate Planner Fisk noted that the tower elements would be closed windows. Commissioner Guerriero also noted his concern with the parking and queried if there would be additional access to the restaurant's parking lot from the street or will patrons be forced to travel to the access road and utilize the primary entry. For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Fisk relayed that through a shared agreement for the entire Power Center II, available for EI T orito as well as the other uses within the Power Center II, there will be adequate parking for the entire center and that when the Power Center II was initially approved, it allowed for a larger restaurant than was is currently being proposed. Commissioner Guerriero stated that it would be his opinion that none of the restaurants in the Promenade Mall and Power Center II have adequate parking and relayed a safety issue with the pedestrian traffic crossing the loop road. . Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the side of the building where the service doors are located, advising that there is an open space with no landscaping and queried if there would be landscaping incorporated. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Associate Planner Fisk noted that there is an easement in that particular area on the side of the building and was not sure if it will be landscaped. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing Real Mex Restaurants and EI Torito, offered a 3-dimenstional PowerPoint presentation, noting the following: . That the proposed project will reflect Temecula's old style and new style . That the proposed project will be vibrant and exciting . That the Plaza area will be fun, exciting, and inviting . That the proposed project will offer many angles . That the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval as presented by staff . That the Planning Commission consider the deletion or fulfillment of Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 . . That the landscaping will be landscaped up the applicant's lease line. R:IMinulesPC1042005 9 ,- Mr. Mark Turpin, representing Real Mex Restaurants, offered the following comments: . That the entire premise of the design of the proposed project is based upon the company's commitment to authentic Mexican food; that the intent with the design would be to create an image of a traditional Mexico or California surrounded by bold colorful shapes that would be found in new construction within Mexico . . That the proposed architecture will combine elements of traditional and contemporary Mexican architectural style. Mr. Mike Chico, architect for the proposed project, noted that the applicant would only be obligated to landscape to the easement line and that the proposed landscaping was designed as a desert landscaping theme to tie along into the new architecture of the building. In response to Commissioners' query, Mr. Chico noted that although staff would have preferred that the building design be either traditional or contemporary, it was the opinion of the applicant that combining traditional and contemporary elements surrounded by bold colorful shapes would be new and exciting. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Fagan relayed that he is unaware of whose responsibility it would be to landscape the easement but would discuss his concern with the property owner. At this time, the public hearing was closed. ) COMMISSION DISCUSSION . Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the following: . That it would be his desire that the back side of the proposed building be landscaped before moving forward with the project . That the east elevation (yellow wall) be dropped down to show some life and color to the elevation which would allow a view into the patio area versus a long flat wall; and expressed his support of the use of bricks and trellis Commissioner Telesio noted his concern with the bold colors and the overall contemporary architecture and would prefer it be the traditional style. Commissioner Guerriero expressed his enthusiasm with the EI Torito coming to the City of Temecula and noted his appreciation for the 3-dimensitional PowerPoint Presentation. Commissioner Guerriero concurred with staff's change of the yellow wall (east elevation) but did express his desire for the original architecture. Nothing his appreciation for the 3-dimentional, Chairman Mathewson relayed that it would be his opinion that the proposed project will be under parked and that the architectural consultant should have reviewed the proposed project for direction. Commissioner Guerriero, echoed by Chairman Mathewson, expressed concern with pedestrian traffic crossing the mall loop road as well as the lack of parking spaces. . R:IMinulesPC1042005 10 ~. . . Commissioner Chiniaeff directed staff to have the landscape architect review the concern of landscaping on the easement. Understanding the concerns of the Planning Commissioners, Mr. Fagan noted that the applicant would be agreeable to a condition that would require the applicant to work with the property owner to address the landscaping easement issue. For the Planning Commission, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that if it were the desire of the Planning Commission, he will forward the proposed project to the architectural consultant along with the concerns of the Planning Commission. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Fisk requested from the applicant that the design be either the traditional or contemporary but that the applicant expressed desire to combine elements of traditional and contemporary Mexican architectural styles. In response to Mr. Fisk's statement, Commissioner Telesio expressed his support of either one style or the other, not a combination of both. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue the item to the May 18, 2005 Planning Commission meeting; requested that the landscaping at the property line be addressed; that parking be addressed; and that the design of the proposed project be forwarded to the architectural review. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. 7 Planninq Application No. PA05-0047. a Development Code Amendment. amendinq the Municipal Code to allow automobile and truck dealerships to conduct weekend promotional activities with an appropriate permit. increase the number of allowable minor temporarv use permits from two to four per vear. and make a modification to the allowable size for freestandinq tenant identification siqns Associate Planner West presented a staff report (of record). In response to the Commissioner Guerriero's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the lumes of the proposed signs would be consistent with what is currently being used. Clarifying for the Commission, Principal Planner Hogan noted that the signs would be internally illuminated and that they would not be a spot light illumination. For the Planning Commissioners, Associate Planner West relayed that if the applicant were to exceed the number and size of the canopies and banners, that would be one way to determine the program's effectiveness. Given the small scale of the program, Principal Planner Hogan was of the opinion that the event would hardly be noticed. Planning Director Ubnoske stated that the item will be forwarded to the City Council. In response to Chairman Mathewson's query, Mr. West noted that the size of the banner would be consistent with the current sign ordinance (32 square feet) and that the maximum height of the banner would be 3 feet with a maximum height off the ground of 6 feet. R:\MinutesPCI04200S 11 ,/- 1 j Chairman Mathewson expressed concern with such activities becoming an every-weekend event. . Addressing Chairman Mathewson's concern, Mr. West stated that the Sunset Provision will provide an opportunity to evaluate the Ordinance; that the intent would be that each dealership would need to apply for a Master Temporary Use Permit and indicate on its site where each canopy, banner, etc... would be located so that it could be enforced by Code Enforcement to ensure that they are in compliance. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Isaac Lizarraga, representing Temecula Valley Auto Association, spoke in favor of the Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to allow automobile and truck dealerships to conduct weekend promotional activities. For the Commission, Mr. West noted that the proposal would be for new car dealerships only. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff will work with the language to include two events at the Mall and two events in area B. Commissioner Guerriero noted that the dealerships in Temecula have been very supportive for special events in town and would be supportive of the proposal, noting that after 18 months, he would be willing to expand the time. ) MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation and to allow for two banners. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.28 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW MINOR WEEKEND PROMOTIONAL EVENTS AND TO CHANGE THE MINOR TEMPORARY USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE AUTO MALL AREA, AND TO ALLOW LARGER FREESTANDING TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK DEALERSHIPS. (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0047)" COMMISSIONER'S REPORT Commissioner Telesio requested that Code Enforcement explore the furniture store and noted that there are quite a few banners on the two twin buildings that indicate "coming soon". . R:\MinutesPC\042005 12 (. . . . , In response to Commissioner Telesio's concerns, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she will have Code Enforcement explore his concerns. Commissioner Telesio also expressed concern with the home on the hill behind Old Town, advising that they have a large for sale banner and could perhaps be in violation as well. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT None at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reQular meetinQ to be held on Wednesday. Mav 4. 2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning Dave Mathewson Chairman R:IMinutesPCI042005 13 ~~;-: ~-,c r ~-. ,;:---- 0:....... "-- ....... :_"~J ATTtI!CHMENT NO. 15 ! PLANNINGCOM~ISSION AGENDA PACKET ! AI\'RIL 20, 2005 R:\C UP\2004\04-0463 Term~cu.la Regi6~j:{~:gosi[tal\PC 1 ~-er-~'--:~-~_"p'-- -_..c.-~ ~ -. ,- ~ :_'---_--.."_~~-- . . . CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner April 20, 2005 Issues to be Analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Hospital SUBJECT: A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District), Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Plan were submitted for review by the Planning Commission on April 6, 2005 to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The day of, but prior to, the Planning Commission hearing for the hospital project, staff received comment letters from the law firm of Best, Best and Krieger, representing Brad and Nicole Stormon who own a home across the street from the proposed project, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Stormon's do not object to the Hospital being located on the proposed site, they feel that the following issues, as outlined in the attached letter from Best, Best and Krieger need to be further analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report: . Lack of traffic impact analysis on Pio Pico . Lack of analysis concerning impacts to equestrian uses in the area . Noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation is not adequately addressed . Lack of analysis concerning visual and aesthetic impacts The letter from Best, Best and Krieger goes on to state that: . A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate for the project . A Water Supply Assessment is required and has not been prepared . Mitigation Measures need to be more definite and certain . There are analytical gaps in the MND The letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (attached) states that while the subject property is not located within a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Criteria Cell, MSCHP policies still apply and the MND needs to include the following: . A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat due to bridge construction . Per MSHCP Species-Specific Objective No.5, a focused survey must be conducted as part of the project review process . USFWS recommends a more thorough habitat analysis be conducted for the burrowing owl, and depending on the results of the survey, on-site conservation measures may be required The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt of these and other letters from area residents and . stated the City's opinion that we agree that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for this project. The staff report of record was then presented and the public hearing was opened. The following represents a combined view of issues identified by public speakers during the hearing: TrafliclCirculation Issues: . Increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses . DePortola Road should not be four-lanes wide . Access from DePortola is not wanted by area residents, if required by City it should be gated for emergency access only . Access from Dartola should be in Phase I of the project . All of Pio Pico south of DePortola should be vacated . Emergency room should be relocated Noise Issues: . Increased traffic will lead to increased noise levels . Helipad and helicopter use will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses . Provide sound walls to mitigate traffic noise Aesthetics: . The hospital towers are too tall and not consistent in the area, views will be lost . Windows will reflect too much light and create glare . Hvdroloav and Groundwater: . Due to increased runoff resulting from this project, a storm water plan should be prepared . Contamination from underground storage tanks may pose a threat to groundwater if the contamination plume is moving. Once paved or built upon, this will be difficult to track. These and other issues will be analyzed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report that will be prepared for this project. The EIR will include the full project scope, Alternatives to the proposed project, discussion of impact areas, responses to all public comments received during the public review period, Mitigation Measures, and supporting studies. . Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor . . S TAT E OF C A L I FOR N I A Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ~"~q "~ i * 1 ffi _~ 7 ~ ~.~ .~ 'li - '''''''''-'~ Sean Walsh' Director April 5,2005 ----.-.- -~- ~f~ It \;1 \ \ h : ;. I\\\!. \ I I I ~ '-n;' APR 1 1 2005 Dan Long City ofTemecnla 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 w~ I~'~"(:~ "11 ' II:,! U .!u;-~ \ ~:~>/ --' -.- ...--.--'." :-::~J Subject: Planning Applications Nos. P A04-0462 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (PDO-X); P A04-0463 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and P A04-057I Tenta SCH#: 2005031017 Dear Dan Long: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on April 4, 2005, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, ~~ Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3Q44 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3016 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base , SCH# Project Title Lead Agency 2005031017 Planning Applications Nos. PA04-0462 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (PDO-X); PA04-0463 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and PA04-0571 Tenta Temecula, City of . Type Neg Negative Declaration Description The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-X) Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the specific plan area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Hwy 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change, the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to T emecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed PDO-X allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 sf of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight lots into one parcel. Lead Agency Contact Name Dan Long Agency City of Temecula Phone (951) 694-6400 email Address City Fax 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula State CA Zip 92590 Project Location County Riverside City Temecula Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township . N. of Hwy. 79 South I De Portola Road I Margarita Road 920-100-001 through 013 Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1-15, Hwy. 79 S Airports N/A Railways None Waterways Temecula Creek SchQols Sparkman ES, Rancho Community (private school under construction Land Use Vacant Z: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) GP: 'professional Office Project Issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality: Archaeologic-Historic; Flood Plain/Flooding: Geologic/Seismic: Landuse: Noise; Other Issues; Population/Housing Balance: Public Services; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Health Services; Office of Emergency Services; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Department of Water Resources; Califomia Highway Patrol; Caltrans. District 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Callrans, Division of Aeronautics . Date Received 03/04/2005 Start of Review 03/04/2005 End of Review 04/04/2005 RECEIVED: 4/ B/05 2:02PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 2 . t I { I , , , , ~ j, i I, I t :<e I " ..: APR-06-2005 14:06 BEST,BEST KRIEGER 909 682 1832 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP IHDIAN WELLS (7eo) see-20 I I A CAUPO~\'i1A. UMrrED UAl51Ll'n' "AfIITN~SHIP INCI.UDINO PROFES310MAI. CO'tPOR.Al1QNl'J I.AWVERS 3750 UNIVERSI1"'I' AVENUE POST OF'F'ICE SOX 1028 RIVERSIDE, CALJFORJllIA 02502-1028 tOS I) e,S&-1 450 (Q5 1 ) 66&3083 rlQ( BBKlAW.COM SACRAMEI<'fQ (0 I eJ 321S-4COO SAN DIEGO lei Q) 525"1300 QIlI'ARI0 (~Q) e8e-a!584 OAANGE COUNlY (940) ae3-'2,eoo I' ISAl.YADOII M. s..&.A%AA !.SA~VADO".SAI.AZAR@BBKLAW. COM ;, ! ~ ( April 6, 2005 Via Facsimile and First Class Mail Dan Long Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: COMMENTS ON INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA04-0462, PA04-1463, AND PA04-OS71 (UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES HOSPITAL PROJECT) , . . . ! r Dear Mr. Long: This law firm represents Brad and Nicole Stormon, owners of a single family residence located on the northeast corner of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road directly across the street from the northerly boundary of the proposed Universal Health Services Hospital development project (''Project'). The Stormon's are in receipt of the City ofTemecula's Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and have retained us to assist them in reviewing the potential impacts of this Project on the environment, their residence and neighborhood, ;. I " , While the Stormon's do not object to the construction of a hospital on the subject site, they want to be assured that the proposed deviations from the existing general plan and zoning designations necessitated by the increased intensity of the Project do not cause unmitigated impacts to the environment. To that end, the Stormon's have attended most of the neighborhood meetings held by the City and/or developer of the Project. They have become quite familiar with the Project and all of its components. In fact, the Stormon's have several times voiced their concerns about the Project to City staff and representatives of the hospital. Although they were informed that their concerns would be addressed in the environmental documents for the Project, they have reviewed the Initial Study and found it to contain significant gaps in information or inadequate analysis. i r , , !; , l t t. ~ llVPUB1SALV ADOR.SAL\ZAR\690947.3 P.02 RECEIVED: 41 6/05 2:02PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 3 j ; j' I, I , I I, I , . f " , . ~ ., APR-06-2005 14:07 BEST,BEST KRIEGER 909 682 1832 J LAW OfFIcES OF' i BEST BEST & KRIEGER I } ! 1 1 ; ; LLP City of Temecula, Planning Department April 6, 2005 Page 2 I f ~' I While the Stonnon's believe that their specific concerns about the adverse traffic, noise, air quality and aesthetic impacts from the Project may be alleviated with: (1) the construction of solid fencing along their property frontage (to screen noise, olock exhaust and screen light and glare); and (2) the installation of traffic calming devices, signs or structures along Pio Pico Road (to slow traffic coming south from Pio Pico Road to access the northerly portion of the Hospital and minimize U-turn traffic by drivers who miss the single DePortola driveway entrance to the hospital) none of these mitigation measures were identified or discussed in the Initial Study or included in the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan prepared for the project. Failure to discuss these feasible mitigation measures renders both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting plan deficient. We have set forth, the Stonnon's conclusions in more detail below. , t, l' i' i: : DEFICIENCIES IN THE INITIAL STUDY f " i i 1. THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO PIO PICO ROAD. I " The failure to discuss potential environmental impacts may result in an inadequate environmental document. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396.) The Initial Study notes that the Project will generate 11,458 vehicle trips per day with 865 trips oecurring during the A.M. peak period and 929 trips occurring during the P.M. peak period. The Initial Study and Traffic Analysis assign 78% of the vehicle trips to Highway 79 (South) and 22% of the trips to DePortola Road. (Initial Study at p. 33.) The Traffic Analysis also "evaluated all of the intersections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road and DePortola Road." (Initial Study at pp. 33.) Inexplicably, however, no vehicle trips were assigned to Pio Pico Road and the intersection ofPio Pico Road and DePortola Road was not one of the intersections studied in the Traffic Analysis. (Sect. 15063 ["State CEQA Guidelines"}.) We understand that the traffic engineer retained by the Project proponents! believes that no assignment of trips to Pio Pico Road is necessary because traffic will not use primarily residential streets to access the hospital. However, there is already a significant amount of traffic that comes from the residents in the northerly areas of the City of Temecula that use Margarita Road and then cut south to Pio Pico Road. These conditions will be exacerbated because persons coming from the northerly portions of the City to the Hospital will find it easier to bypass most of the traffic accessing the Hospital from Margarita Road and instead enter the Hospital complex from the driveway located off DePortola Road. Indeed, it appears from looking at a map of the City that a large portion of its population base is located north of the Hospital with easy access to Margarita Road as a means to travel south in the City. , r ~ i . t I Additionally. we note that while the City may utili2e information prepared by the Project proponent, the City must find that the environmental analysis reflects the City's independent judgment. (See, e.g., State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15074.) RVPUBISALV ADOR.SAlAZARI6!10941.3 P.03 " {(\~~; J, .' I; ....~\ (1 " " .';..,:.,/, ',.':<'/' ' ,1(,\ ,...t'; , " /';::" >~,~ . ,'T~Xt' .:: '::\,"(, ',,",,;I:'~f:: : .. ': .:, ;~,~ RECEIVED: 41 6/05 2:02PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 4 APR-06-2005 14:07 BEST,BEST KRIEGER 909 682 1832 . LAW OFl'la:s OF ,. .BEST BEST &. KRIEGER LLP ~ City ofTemecula, Planning Department ~ April 6, 2005 I. Page 3 i i ': . , - , , , i , . , . " , Given these street conditions, the StOllllon's request that the Traffic Analysis be amended to: (I) include a study of the intersection of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road; and (2) study the reassigmnent of vehicle trips that would travel south beginning at the intersection Margarita Road to Pio Pico Road. After the Traffic Analysis is revised, at a minimum, the City should recirculate the Mitigated Negative Declaration for an additional comment period. (State CEQA Guidelines, 9 15073.s.) ; i ( i. 2. THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING IMPACTS TO THE E'lUESTRJA.N USES PeRMmED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. ( , AB you know, the Los Ranchitos Property Owners Association maintains several equestrian trail easements for the use of property owners in the area surrounding the proposed project. These trails constitute an established land use that serves to connect communities which may be adversely impacted by the Project's construction and operation. One of the trails is located along De Portola Road. The De Portola trail is accessed by a north-south trailloeated on the east side of the Stonnon's property. While these equestrian easements are not identified as "equestrian trails" in the City of Temecula's General Plan, they exist through recorded easements and are frequently used by local property owners. In addition, the City of Temecula has implicitly recognized the importance of these trails by requiring the Project to construct a trail along the westerly portion of the Project. The Initial Study, however, fails to identify the trail access as an issue and lacks any discussion of impacts to the use of these equestrian trails from Project-generated traffic, especially traffic using Pio Pico Road to access the north side of the Proj ecl. .. 3. THE INITIAL STUDY IDENTIFIES SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM NOISE SOURCES AssOCIATED WITH TIlE PROJECT, BUT OMITS DISCUSSION OF SoME SOURCES AND DOES NOT IDENTIFY MI1TGA1TONMEASURES TO REDUCE mE NOISE FROM OTHER SOURCES 10 LESS THAN SIGNIFlCANl LEJIELS. t . . I , The Initial Study notes that the Project will include a heliport. (Initial Study pp. 26-27.) The Initial Study also identifies development standards that are applicable to the installation of heliports. However, none of these development standards include specific noise standards for heliports. Further, the Initial Study does not discuss: (1) the anticipated frequency of use of the heliport; (2) the anticipated noise levels associated with the heliport; or (2) the potential noise impacts to surrounding properties. . I. i , : In addition, the Initial Study notes that "there will be temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during construction activities and during peak traffic periods." (Initial Study at pp. 27) While the Initial Study notes that these noise levels will be temporary in nature, there is no discussion concerning how the City can pennit noise levels in excess of those identified in the General Plan. CEQA defines a "significant effect on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the area affected by the project including... ambient noise. ..." Temporary . . i ,. I r i RVPUB\SALV ADQR.SAlAZARI690947.3 P.04 ,'(I".: ", 'r.(::~~ I( . ""L'Il;( ..1".....\ "(.... :.l)II~' . .i'iI:i1 ~ '.;{.Yr~. '. ,I.. ~ \,0' t. . ".:.i..'::/'~ '.\ " ,::I.' ~ . i ."q....v . "fU<<~~' ~ .,,{,;.~~ :: ~::f~~'~f.~~ . Ul::,~ ::>t\",~ " ":~;,:M:\ ~~ . I ~ , 'J"f,",..~ ,: .,'/'" 1>.:/;,:/;, , :' ;1!J.~\!::1 " :"'t!"/~ " ~ ~~.!~; :. , , ~.:.~'~'A<" "\' ,,'., . ~I<\':t., '. '!'~/~""\:(:!M ~",. ..c '.;"',IJi.. f>, ~'.l.~,.\t'J "/I\,"I'ip ',", ,,~):.ll j " ~ ,\ "'Of 'I~~.' ~ , ,:1 ':\':,~~ . ...~. I'" . ,'<,': ,,'.::\~ .,.,Il"'l" . ""':("'.1.1, i.Ii\...,1tl . . , ,~l, -"'J' .' 'r:.~.1 'L" .," .. , ~. ,,'.~; :~t , /;':\J:',~~ .".,,,.....';:,1 , .:I.t >P."II;~ .' , (,,',t.' , ~,.:,.! - '." "A.,,,:.,,~t.ll " .,1".,;:' 'I~', ,~' ~I/' : " ~"." Ji' ,', I ,I ~'~. ..,1'/.", ., . . .;. ~,.. . . '~'!":\I'l~~ :~;,:;,:;';:~t,::' I"';.' ':':~:~t' . '1" :\',.~",1! ,,~.~,,!l,~ \ , . I \ ,....~; ~..\ II ' , . ,{;I;....f....,f ';//'"','1' 'l"..:~~"j( '~':" II . / \"~' . . ~ '~/<j "'~ "'I...~.. . . ,'\,. .., ^ "... . . \"s~\ ;!:~:jJ, " ~. I I ~I' .:. I: ~;t. ~;,'.I~Jo' " . ~/,}~\l'". . \ "'~" . """',(,'1' " : ,~~'rt~:j,Jl . ..:~ :," ~ .~. .,',\ ~\I'at", . ""...."'r' " }:~',:,',..l .",:!,!,; :Y . ~,\,:~'l,j "I 't" , ,:,:' ;~~ ~ ~{:l.":f , 10'\," '~.Io /, ':""),,(~ {"""!)'k '/, "1 '. .,:1','";,, "\,jo \r' , "p'.,! ,'., ',I!'" , ~, I ' .~,. , ".,w!,,' ': \' ':/"~:; . "~ ~ . ,. \..';'\:,..~;: J ~', ~,_~ '." . . ',",:.;, "~ ,\1 ',:'; , ,,{., ,,' {, .:~ ~ .>.; rr''f:'' :~" '1'::\: . ..'I ..."" ~ RECEIVED: 4/ 6/05 2:03PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 5 APR-06-2005 14:08 BEST,BEST KRIEGER 909 682 1832 j' BEST ~ LAW 0FFICf:S Of BEST & KRIEGER LLP . " 1 , City ofTemecula, Planning Department April 6, 2005 Page:4 i i j' 1 i " , . impacts can be significant adverse impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR if mitigation is not implemented. (No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,85 ["Although the duration of an environmental effect is one of many facts which affect its significance, nothing in [CEQA] suggests that short-tenn effects cannot be of such significance as to require an EIR."].) Pennitting noise levels in excess of those authorized in the City's General Plan would constitute a "significant effect on the environment". Finally, we note the discussion on page 27 of the Initial Study which appears to suggest that because the City Council adopted a Statement of Oveniding Considerations (SOC) for noise as part of the adoption of the EIR for the 1993 General Plan, the SOC can be used to override any noise impacts from the current Project. [We note also that this same discussion occurs with respect to significant air quality impacts.] First, the City cannot rely on a statement of oveniding considerations prepared for another project. The court in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 126 CaI.Rptr.2d. 441, clearly held that, "[e]ven though a prior EIR's analysis of environmental effects may be subject to being incorporated in a later EIR for a later, more specific project, the responsible pUblic officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." Thus, a public agency may prepare a negative declaration that tiers off of a previous EIR; however, a negative declaration is inappropriate where any of the project's impacts are significant and unavoidable. If any of the project's impacts are significant and unavoidable the agency must prep arc an EIR and adopt a statement of ovaniding considerations specifically for that project. , , \ ~ t , i' , Second, this al'proach is inapplicable where, as here, the project is not consistent with the 1993 General Plan. Indeed, the Project requires a general plan amendment and zone change in order to develop the Project in the manner and intensity proposed. For your reference, we point your attention to Section 15162( e) of the CEQA Guidelines which provides that U[TJiering shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the ~eneral ulan and zoning of the city ... in which the project is located...." (CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15152(e).) Therefore, it is inappropriate for the City to use the SOC from the 1993 General Plan EIR to simply ovenide the noise and air quality impacts identified for the Project. i, ! , 4. THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING VISUAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACTS TO THEIR PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The Initial Study notes that the proj ect will include various buildings and a hospital structure that includes towers of five and six stories (106' in height). It further notes that "[Wlhile the project will be visible from various residential lots, a less than significant impact is 2 The City is currently in the process of significantly revisiDg its GeDeral Plan yet it appears that this Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared tiering off of the 1993 General Plan EIR. The SlOnnon'S are very concerned about the City's w;e of that EIR as it would be inappropriate to tier off of aD environmental dOClUllent that is no longer accurate. Additional analysiJ should be conducted to determine whether or not the Project is consistent with the new General Plan. t . RVPl.)BI$"WAPOR.S"LAZAR16909<1.3 1 P.05 RE~EIVED: 41 B/05 2:03PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 6 APR-06-2005 14:08 BEST,BEST KRIEGER 909 682 1832 ( I ) LAW OFFICES OF , '_' BEST BEST ~ KRIEGER LLP i City of Temecula, Planning Department r April 6, 2005 I ; Page 5 " , . - I, f " I , I j' '- 1 ,I f i . , . anticipated because views are considered private and are not considered to be of public benefit." (Initial Study at p.3.) However, this statement does not absolve the City from analyzing the aesthetic and visual impacts on surrounding residential properties of constructing a six-story building. There can be no doubt that the visual character of the area will be significantly affected with the construction of 106-foot tall structure in the immediate vicinity of a' residential neighborhood. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass 'n v. Montecito Wate,. Dist. (2004) 116 CaI.App.4th 396 [concern oflocal residents regarding aesthetic impacts may establish substantial evidence to support a fair argument that a project has a significant adverse impact on aesthetics); The,Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 2004 Cal.App. LEXIS 2074 [lay opinion may be substantial evidence of aesthetic impacts].) Dismissing the analysis simply because the views are not legally protected does not comply with the requirements of CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15063; see also Pm/ect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 CaI.App.4'" 1099 [stating that the lead agency must consider every fair argument that can be made about a possible significant environmental effect, even if the project already meets established thresholds].) The conclusions reached in the initial study must be based on some evidence. (Ibid.) Entries on a checklist or other fonn should be briefly explained to indicate the basis for determinations. (Citizens Ass 'n for Sensible Development v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App. 3d 151, 171.) " I In addition, the discussion concerning the mitigation of glare impacts does not discuss whether the purported mitigation measure requiring all windows above the second floor to be glazed and/or tinted will in fact reduce the impacts of glare to less than significant levels. , ~ ~ I 1: i' i j ; , " f I, J. . , I, " 1:;." l RVPUB'SALV AllOR.SALAZM\\690947.3 P.06 APR-06-2005 14:08 RECEIVED: 41 6/05 2:03PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 7 909 682 1832 : I.AW OFF1Cr;;s OF' r BEST BEST 6. KRIEGER LLP ! BEST,BEST KRIEGER City ofTemecula, Planning Department April 6, 2005 Page 6 i' ! ,. j- .,. !: , I ; i ; CONCLUSION We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study for this project. For the reasons set forth above and additional reasons listed in the attachment to this letter, the Initial Study does not adequately address the proposed impacts from the Project. In other cases, the Initial Study is missing significant infonnation required by law or identifies significant impacts without mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. As a result, the City of Temecula should consider preparation of an enviromnental impact report (EIR) for the Project. ~. y , .. , , . I I , , i , r , I . , ., j , , SMS:mxm alazar, AICP T & KRIEGER LIP Cc: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director Brad & Nicole Stormon i i 1. " , I L /"- . I , .. I l l. , : l t , I , t ;. ji , r I \ RVPOBI$ALVMXlR.SAUZAR\690947.3 P.0? RECEIVED: 41 6/05 2:04PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 6 APR-06-2005 14:09 BEST,BEST KRIEGER 909 682 1832 , LAW OrncES Or _ BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP ~ City ofTemecula, Planning Department i; April 6, 2005 1 Page 7 J , , i ;' i . I' " I '.~ , : i .: : .:,' " ;,.:: .'.,. ~ ' ), :. , , i' , , EXHmIT TO LETTER TO CITY OF TEMECULA , , \ PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REpORT , .. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) generally requires preparation of an EIR when it can be fairly argued, based on substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Cal.Code of Regs. T.itle 14, Division 6, Chapt. 3, Sect. 15064.) If substantial evidence of significant impacts is presented, the lead agency must prepare an EIR, even though it may be presented with other substantial evidence that a project would not have significant impacts. (Ibid.) 1, MND Not Annronriate For The Proiect CEQA Section 15070 (a) states that , r f Decision to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration of CEQA requires that an MND may be prepared when the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence. in light of the whole record before the agency. that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. " Section ISa-c of the City of Temecula Initial Study for this project indicates that the Traffic Impact Analysis has identified several roadways and intersections improvements that when implemented could result in a Level of Service (LOS) of D or better in the study area intersections. ~ stated in the Initial Study, a LOS ofD or better mayor may not be achievable. However, the roadway intersections upon implementation of the mitigation measures mav still have a significant effect on the enviromnent. , , , 2. Water Sunnlv Assessment Reouirement: The Project does not comply with the water supply assessment requirements of California Water Code section 10910(a). Section 10910(a) provides: , , ; Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section J 09 J 2, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. . . under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part. California Water Code section 10912(a)(2) further provides: r i 1, IWPUBISALV 1.OOR.SALAURI690947.J P.08 . ,.r,'" . :f.t,.;~, : 11.\ , .',;~:,llt. '. >~'" .: .' ~. I~ 'l'; ;I" , ,.' ..:':',~ ~lill! .."I' ~,A~ ,.\ "~:~ , ""1'" o ",;'(.\ 'I :,.~':~":~... : '" i,~~..,1 _""111'11 "; ':'i'''I,~ ~ I." ::~q~', , , \ ~ " '1i; : 1 ~I :', ~~..~(, , "1\" IQl :" "16'\f."..' '" ;f',Itl '. "I,\'/!VJ. , " ~. iQ; . ~. .,'.\ I ~', ' , ','i,!,'Vl'f\ , :"'!t.":; '\\':'f! .' j ,~,. ,'1. .'; ',t:.j.I' . 'J,:.',r~'lI. I .\,:,..}~t,( , \,.y..'<l'~ " '..\.t~~~ ',":''1'.:<1. , ) ,l:;: ,\~", ~' ,.1 ' >, "'l-~,.< . , , ',', 'It~, ,,",'f'" .' ,'"I" ,":)'f.:t ~ .'1",,1,.,. : .;"~l . ",,' " \ _,;/,1\ I , ./r,.trt,. \, .::';:.~I::i:~: . , ' ,," - 'f' , " 'f....~!' "" 'I" " :~'~:'l"""~ "':"I"',~;~,',r' ". ~ ~:. t ""l"ol?o ' . \~, '. \ 0', ' . . ,i:.\ll~ ..,,,,,..,\.:~ " '1'/, '<'" . ,.:."1., I "',,\k, ,.\.',fl, .', :' ::~!,~~,~~. ,....:. .,'l~' '~" \~'.., ,\ '\ ~,' f. ;,. ",,-,:('i.~'" , :..~'~{~..~', ..tl:("" , ': ',"'I'~~!.iti ( . "1 " ,It~ . : ::~~h" " , ", .,'l " "I, ~.. ;f'~::, '; " ' '~,.,~ ", ,~'rt:'l :,,:, ',~'''''l~! .,;'~:F,J:' ii, 'i'''~''', . ' .. ',' h , )':lf~j: I(~ ,'.l"i<)!;" , '" I, ,~~1~~ " 1:'~:'I~r.~; , .' ," 'f" , ',.}...'~ j' '(~~ ,:,~ ", , ~" '\' . ,,,~.' , . ,;I,;:(i"!i: .:';~::~:~~" ,. ,"II . ,.", ol,'. ; I . J~', ""'l'! , ,"',\" , ". . '~,f; , ',.' ,~:,:.'~ ~::~,~.~~tl:: , ': ~",~ ~:~ , ,', >;~l~'. ',' I,;:~t! , ;W"'I:,'I~ . , . ~. "" '.' ,,~,::,\ Iii; , 'f~ f''''~, , 'I""" 1,{I.,,),ld"i , , ~,. ;:. '1': I , : ~ ." . :..' .,J, h',,:'IIJ , I ~'/~\~';'f'G ......"1 ' , .> '",,' I. ' ~.;;'.~i:~;,:;';~l RECEIVED: 4/ 6/05 2:04PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; .PAGE 9 BEST,BEST KRIEGER 909 682 1832 APR-06-2005 14:09 ~, I LAW OFl'1CES OF 1, BEST BEST ~ KRIEGER I t , I I i , f, !, .1' u..p City ofTemecula, Planning Department April 6, 2005 Page 8 "Project" means .., A proposed . . . business establiShment employing. . . having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (Emphasis added) I , I \ l :' \ i' f I . .. i, l' .' , \ , I " , \' " , , , , " \ According to the Initial Study, the Project proposes the construction of approximately 568.000 square feet of hospital and office conunercialland uses. Therefore, a water sllpply assessment should be prepared for the Project. The Initial Study notes that a "will serve letter" will be submitted for the Project. However, such letters do not indicate whether there is sufficient water supply to meet the long-term needs of the Project. Only a water supply assessment can provide that infonnation. Additionally, the water supply assessment must be included in the environmental document. (Wat. Code, ~ 10911.) 3. Mitigation Measures Must be Definite and Certain To Reduce the Itnnacts California courts have consistently held that studies cannot be deferred. Moreover, standards and criteria to be met in carrying out mitigation must be articulated at the time of project approval. (See generally, Sundstrom v. County ofMendoncino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, and 070 Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of EI Dorado (1990) 225 Cal. App.3d 872.) Several portions of the Initial Study indicate that future studies will be prepared to identify the mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. However, the Initial Study does not identify the criteria or performance standards that these future studies must meet. For example, the Initial Study notes that future studies will be prepared on the following items: A. Page 2 Section J.d. This section refers to outdoor ligbting and its impacts to the adjoining residential properties, The Initial Study proposed as a mitigation measure that a photometric plan be prepared in the future to determine the adequate lighting levels for the entire site. This photometric study must identify means to mitigate light. However, in the event the mitigation measures cannot mitigate the impacts identified it will be too late to redesign the project to reduce the impacts because the project would have been substantially completed. Page 2 Section J.d.e. This section is recommending, among other things, the installation of a solid wall with acoustic attenuation in order to screen aesthetic impacts; This acoustic solid wall may have an even greater negative aesthetic impact than impacts it seeks to mitigate because the height and location of the solid wall could be as high as 10 or 15 feet in order to attenuate noise generated by the project. , j, I , , B. , r , , i' l' c. Page 9 Mitigation/Condition of approval letter J. This condition indicates that the applicant shall verify in writing that all earth moving equipment are properly tuned. However, the condition fails to indicate when and how often such verification should occur. Additionally, this condition indicates that the \: RVPUB\SAL v AOOR.SALAZAR\690941.3 .ft P.09 RECF.IVED: 41 6/05 2:04PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 10 RPR-06-2005 14:09 BEST,BEST KRIEGER 909 682 1832 j, LAW omcES Of' i BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP , ~ City ofTemecula, Planning Department i April 6. 2005 !' Page 9 , I f I' ~' \ , j ;1 , " . " " , " , " I ., " .. , I '" . . r t I' l' ;" t. !: j l. " ~ \ t ~ i ~ i' . t .. ; ',. i. -, \ (. , " .,'" :, ,I /" .\' , '. ., , .' construction equipment should be deployed considering the lowest emission factor. This condition is vague and does not identify the appropriate party that would decide what should be the lowest emission factor. D. Page 13. Section 4 f.c. This section requires a focused survey to determine impacts to the Burrowing Owl. This study should be prepared prior to the approval of the Project. However, in order to have a successful passive relocation the owls must have an area where to relocate. Therefore, we recommend that the focused study detennine the areas where the owls would be relocated. Furthennore, Page 12, sections 4.a.c.d. This section incorrectly refers to the California Department of Fish and Game as the US Department of Fish and Game. Further, this section indicates that a focused survey following standard protocols shall be perfonned to detennine the presence/absence of the Least Bells Vireo. This requirement defers the survey until after Project approval and is inappropriate because the Planning Commission and/or City Council will not be able to make an infonned decision concerning impacts to the Least Bell's Vireo. The City should prepare and EIR and consult with the Depamnent of Fish and Game as required in State CEQA Guidelines section 15086. 4. Analvtical Gaus in the MND Page 5, section 2(c), This section states that "the proposed project could, because of its regional significant cause other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use," This impact is significant unless mitigation is identified. (See, e.g., Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 CaI.App.4lb 1261.) There is no explanation for the conclusion that "the conve.xsion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the proposed project." Page 7 Table 2. We are unclear as to whether the air quality analysis also considers emissions from helicopters? Page 14. The Initial Study fails to discuss whether tlie Project complies with S.B. 18. S,B 18 requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan, the City must conduct consultations with California Native American tribes for the pllIpose of preserving specified places, features, and objects that are located within the City's jurisdiction. Page 17, section 6(a)(vii). Mitigation measure vii should specific how the air quality impacts are reduced. Page 18, section 6(e). The Initial Study fails to specify which sewer system will be used for the Project. In addition, the Initial Study does not indicate the existing capacity of the sewer system. There is no analysis to support the conclusion that the current sewer system and waste treatment facilities are adequate to accommodate the Project. Page 19, section 7 (a), (b) and (c). This section indicates that the Project is not anticipated to emit RVPOB\SAL v ADORSALAZAR\59094H P.10 ,,"J"\'! " \~ ',1-.,', . ','::11\"'1 \ .',1...^:: , ~~j",.j:"r "l,:t'. '. . :''':~' 1r , :~::~'f~-4'. .:' ~~"l . ",;l'~" I".'~" , I' ,'t~1!o' '\',;":'ih" . "",,-!.'/! , ~'I..': ~C... " .' .1' '." "oJ, , \ """'''~i' :, I ~';~ ,I "" J ',' " : :~,~ '1 'I ~~ ~'Ii (.~ \\""1" 'I;',~J" ,'., ,fro IJ.', ~ \ ,'1' ~\ 'ffi' . ":<:i~:Ir. ,"'" ~,~ ~ '\~ ht'.'~1,: :.\',~./r." "hll'l.lN' ". ~ 'r.,,:~,J." . : ~':)(f~ ""/I,':t."i , ,,<','. ~.I '.' ~, ;t" .:: ':',I~; .. <:,~~' ", ',,\.o'f', / I, ',1" ~" " :'/:,:":1; ,/." ,i:' ;,:::~~,t.:. ".',' ',\' ~"" ." 10 \. ~~1 : 'I,I.~;.:~: .,.1",., , ,~' ~;'4,1.,,' , ,.,~ 't ". " '~~" ~~.,' , ~.'t,',t\ .: >~ :'l.~}'; " I"IP',~ ,> "I~:'~r" ";" J :.'~, , " ':-':!q':~ . ".( :r~ " ,t' ~,\"~\" , .I'i,:; ,'\,.") :l..l . .(f ,I'""..""... )"/,,,t,: . A"'."', , :'~'. ~:', ~~, "'", ~"'" t, \, ~~I~~" , ".l~"..,...~: ',"'r'.' .lr' ; , .,~", ,) ':"~ ,.,..l,':ft. : i';~:{.~i """",,(1 '~l ,..,,' .6' , "lllf,-' ; ,~,,;~ ''It'l : " :~j; i: I ,:'~< : : ! !:~! . 'f:'~l! .::: \:,:"ll~' . ",C; ~\: . ':.rt"'\ '" I ". "'i , "i. ,). . 'r:,J': lw: \, , 'I ;~ 'I:. . ','1":""'1 , ~: :\i1i,f\ ,"," 'j' , " '( t ~ M "I. 'h' , , .~' ':~ ;,:,11 , ... '~/\, I"~ ':"';1" '/ ~~ 7,1:-, "i,. ': ~:l;~,~ """W"'", . ",.' ")ll~ . .(\ \t \~Irl , ..: '~, :,~ :.''''''~'1\ ....'I,~.:!II',~ , ~ .;; :'~I.' l~'r , ""h , ':','{iI+',,~/. ~.I (: ";11 , ,,'.t'\~~~k11'_ RECEIVED: 41 6/05 2:05PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 11 , f I ; " , I, I ~ " '. , I , , , :.. '.'1." " . >:i ~:, BEST, BEST KRI EGER 9139 682 1832 APR-136-213135 14:113 j lJo,W OFFICES Of' f BEST BEST is. KRI(GER , f: " i [ j LLP City of Temecula, Planning Department April 6, 2005 Page 10 f (, \ , , substantial emissions or have any impacts from the use of hazardous materials. However, the discussion fails to indicate what are substantial emissions or whether the storagelhandlingltrllnSportation of hazardous materials is only for the hospital or whether the hospital would become a regional facility for the disposaVstorage of hazardous materials. Additionally, the mitigation measure indicates that the applicant is required to submit to staff an approved hazardous materials storage/transportation plan. The analysis does not identify which staff member is the responsible party and whether they are qualified to make this determination. Page 24, section 9(b). This section indicates that the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan because the site is designated for such uses as hospital and medical offices. However, the analysis does not address the fact that the proposed project is 300% larger than the hospital and medical facilities that are pennitted under the current land use and zoning designation. This analysis is inconsistent with the with the City's adopted and Draft General Plan. i " . ! , .' I. " , ., " , Goal I of the current and Draft General Plan states that the City wants a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial . . .land uses. The Policy, which is the implementing mechanism for this goal, requires the City to review all proposed development plans for consistency with the community goals, policies and implementation programs of the City's General Plan. Further, Table 2-9 which is the mechanism that guides the policy, currently notes that to achieve compatible/complementary commercial and residential uses all projects in this area shall be limited in height to one or two stories to be compatible with the existing Ranch Style residential projects in the area. Deleting the height restriction under Table 2-9 does not make the project consistent with this General Plan policy. Page 26, section 11 Noise generally. This section indicates that noise will not be an issue because the State Highway fonns a separation barrier between the Project site and the residences to the south. However, the analysis does not indicate how the impacts to the residential properties to the north would be mitigated. .. . \ i , t. ~ Page 37, section 16(f). There is insufficient infonnation to support the conclusion that the Project will have a less than significant impact. The Initial Study does not identify where fill and construction materials will be disposed of, or which landfill will construction material be taken to. The Initial Study does not identify the disposing landfill's current capacity or the Project's anticipated capacity during construction and operation. Regarding the disposal the Initial Study does not identify the routes that will be used to transport the materia\. To the extent these trucks pass any residential areas, noise and air quality impacts will be significant. " " ; I., . t \ ~'^~-, P.l1 ,~./' ::t~~'II~ , . ".~.,I ~ ,.'.\1'.11-4:1' . :~. ,",\.. ; " '~"'I." "',""'/~ , . .~. :"~' '. '~1~' ' . '. I.~'\"''l.~ : ,\;.~'~~II ..' ."y,>l'J:>1 , ','\';\"'~"S!t .' :t'.r I ':..:"~ " ", 'ft" "", . 1~ t f I'; :i!;..I, " . .' ',~ .:J;..t,.~ , ',"~.":'..lc:-~ .', ":ll'~;~ ,I ,:"" ""\ , ~', i~~.. '';( . \" ....~.:,l~ . ~ 'rl ;~1..,~," ':"':'l"~ ,," .,~~I: .f j~': ~:~:"r. ',: l';~,;,r . p"""': .,'1:" , ~. ,,"I"i~i' ~ '~I~":~~'" , .,:('t:; { , "(It;'~..~ ~ . ,,:,;1:;''\1:: ,: ,~' ..' , '" ',~~l::'. " . " "~'. "'. .~'.t>,f: I f'". . .f- :' "(/,'.;~l ".::1'..,1':' , . ,:~t: ('v'!' , .,',.....,1 '.,' ,..~,~~..~ "'~~ ',"';,:,1.j(lc' t""",' ":j'~:'" i . .,(,:",.'1 ; ':~1,1:"\' . .l'l"l ," " ; ':~~' ':;',:. '".,,;t\;. . ."~ i....l!. ..::{:t~t:'l ,\.' \ ~.~.:. '\ ,,'.~" '" e.r:, ~ ~ I ....:L: '~I:. I',. ': '.1 ; ',1' ~'..;." ,.,,1 ~'''''l~ ,,~ , .~, ,\ I,,: ',tl;ll~ , . , .~ "~ I!~ ,...;1 Id.J f' '~'~:. '1'1 " ::N::l"'" '.' ':'~',.. :, ,\~, ""'6! .,\;t,!,,~, ,~,:",'I , ,',.~, '..''''1 /. ,t"" ", .,:,11' '7'<;: ". "'ll:~ :1,IJ:;'lH,~ ;,' {,fl' I ~, .! .\, , . 'w,'-:'. ,','. I' . I, ; ,.1 ~I " ",," . , , t., , '\1 ~,;~ .' t,~,' . :1'0( . ,I;,:" :. ~ :.:: :, ~:-...t..~ . "~j,,:..l'{ : ,'.:}::'~'~; , .,.~ "~:~1'" , " I ,~ ,\,,'J I,\r,,:,.'" . ;" ~~.~~, ' '" .::. ,1.~1 ," . . ,,~ ;r~ ......1 " . ~~:.l~ \'~~' . "j' 'I'V" ' ;'}:~"/~' :i, : '1,,,"0.., ~':: '. ' .1.~",.\,I:' . "I''''':';<f: . ~..' .\, > " I.u',. .J AEC~IVED: 4/ 6/05 2:09PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #815; PAGE 2 US FISH AND WILDLIFE 1aI002/003 04/06/2005 14:07 FAX 7609180638 . . B '" United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carl.bad, California 92009 In Reply Refer To: FWS-WRIV-4430.1 APR 0 6 2005 . Dan Long Associate Planner City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Temecula Regional Hospital, General Plan Amendment! Zone Change P A04-0462, Development Planl Conditional Use Permit P A04-0463, Tentative Parcel Map 32468, City of TemecuIa, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Long: We have reviewed the information provided in the above-reference Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that we received on March 4, 2005. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of approximately 35.31 acres into 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical offices, cancer center, and fitness center. The proposed project site is located north of Highway 79, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, within the City of Temecula, Riverside County, Caiifomia. We offer the following comments pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 D.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and in keeping with our agency's mission to work "with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people." On June 22,2004, we issued a section 10(a)(I)(B) permit for the WestemRiverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP establishes a multiple species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with activities covered wider the permit. We are providing the following comments to assist you in your preparation of an MSHCP consistency finding and adoption of a final MND for the proposed project. Although the proposed project site is not located within ,the MSHCP Criteria Area, other MSHCP policies and procedures are applicable to the proposed project. Specifically, these include the Protection of Species Associated with RiparianlRiverine Areas and Vernal Pools policy (MSHCP section 6.1.2 pp 6-20) and the Additional Survey Needs ,and Procedures (MSHCP section 6.3.2, figure 6-4). i TAKE PRICE.~ INAMER(CA~ RECEIVED: 41 aJ05 2:09PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #815; PAGE 3 04/06/2005 14:07 FAX 7609180638 US FISH AND WILDLIFE IaJ 003/003 Dan Long (FWS-WRN-4430.1) 2 . , The initial study states that the proposed project site co~tains riparian and riverine habitat that will be disturbed by the proposed action. However, the:MND does not address how the proposed project will comply with the MSHCP Protection of SpeCies Associated with Riparian! Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools policy (MSHCP section 6.1.2).; We recommend that the applicant submit a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation as described in section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (pages 6-24 and 25) for retiewby the City and the Wildlife Agencies for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat due ~o bridge construction. The proposed project site is located within the BUrrOWi~g Owl Survey Area (MSHCP section 6.3.2, figure 6-4). The initial study states that grassland habitat which is potentially suitable for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) occurs on the proposed project site and focused pre-construction clearance surveys for this species shal~ be conducted one month prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. The initial s~dy further states that if burrowing owls are found during clearance surveys, they will be relocatjld. However, MSHCP species-specific objective # 5 for the burrowing owl requires that fOCUS~ surveys to determine the presence of burrowing owls be conducted as part of the project revi w process and that the locations of this species (determined as a result of survey efforts) be con erved in accordance wi th procedures further described under this objective (MSHCP Volum~lI, pp B-65). (please note that focused surveys are required to determine burrowing owl prese~ce and address consistency with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures and the speci~s-specific objectives; whereas, pre- construction clearance surveys are intended to prevent 'frect mortality of owls.) . I. I We recommend that a more thorough habitat assessmetjt be conducted to determine whether potential habitat is indeed suitable for the burrowing owl. If it is determined that suitable habitat occ?Ts o~ the site. focused ~urveys for burrowing owl ,ill need to be conducted according to California Department of Fish and Game accepted prot~ols and the results addressed m accordance with the MSHCP species-specific objectivd: Depending on the results of the survey, the proposed project may need to incorporate onsite co+ervation measures for the burrowing owl consistent with species-specific objective #5. Ther~fore, we recommend that surveys be conducted prior to project approval. : ; We recommend that the aforementioned MSHcP consi~~nCy issues be fully addressed prior to the City of Temecula's adoption of the MND or approv81 of the project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject MND. If you haK.e any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Heather Reading of this office ~t (760) 431-9440, extension 357. Since jy, (j ,JjJ ~ J. / cr-- K:::t. Goebel cc: 0 .A:~~art Field Supervisor Leslie MacNair, California Department ofFish and GaJ~, Ontario, CA ,. . .( OffIcers 2004-2005 President, Larry Markham Vice President, Neal Zift Secrelaryffreasurer, Rebecca Weersing Architectural & Environmental Control, Don Stowe omeowners Associati6E;'~~ , I' , - . r . . 593' APR 0 6 Z005 otmail.com', . _.-~~;~r~ \\5\ ; , '\ \! \. . 11 ~ \ . " i__.. @;-...,.--, . ....--. - .--.- ....-..-- ..-- Directors 2004.2005 Jeffrey Tomaszewski Dee Messing Kathleen Stowe Ray Bennett April 5, 2005 Dan Long, Associate Planner City ofTemecula Planning Dept Temecula, CA 92589 CC: All Members, City of Temecula Planning Commission The proposed hospital project has proved to be a moving target with respect to ongoing reviews by our association. In our initial meetings with hospital representatives, including an association sponsored community meeting, tIlose representing the hospital made it very clear tIiat one of their priorities was to address concerns of homeowners within our community with regards to any perceived negative impact that might be caused by the hospital project. While many residents of the Los Ranchitos community questioned the proposed location of the hospital, they also appreciated the advantages of having an . acute care hospital located in Temecula. Based on the commitment of the hospital group to work with our local residents, many retained an objective attitode as discussions continued The primary responsibility of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners board of directors is to monitor and protect properties located within our association boundaries. To this end, our preliminary efforts were concentrated on the potential impact of this project on the Los Ranchitos parcels that were purchased by the hospital group for inclusion in the project, additional properties adjacent to or near the project, and any changes in traffic that would impact our community. In our original meetings with the hospital representatives, as well as early discussions with representatives from the Planning Commission, the plans presented and subjects discussed reflected the following positive results: I. The use of Los Ranchitos parcels purchased for use by the proposed hospital consisted of a green belt, walking paths and single story structures to be used for cardiac rehabilitation. We feh this was an acceptable use of these parcels, subject to the required association approval of an amendment to existing Los Ranchitos CC&R's. 2. Hospital representatives agreed that is was appropriate to buffer adjacent properties by creating raised landscaped berms along the west and north boundaries of the hospital site, including the extensive use of mature trees. This effort would contribute to the preservation of the rural atmosphere of our community. They further agreed that this landscaping work would be done at the outset of the project. Additionally, the hospital representatives agreed to provide the continuation of existing equestrian trails along the west and north boundaries of their project 3. Based on the bospital plans originally submitted, the ouly traffic access to the bospital were two entrances on Highway 79. We feh this would result in ntinima1 traffic and noise impact to the Los Ranchitos community. 4. In subsequent meetings with the hospital group and city planners, there was agreement on the value of providing an additional access to the hospital property by extending Dartola Rd, which would facilitate traffic approaching the hospital from Margarita, thus reducing traffic on Highway 79 and providing an emergency eutrance in the unlikely event that 79 was blocked due to an major accident With regards to the proposed 5 and 6 story buildings to be located on property outside the boundaries of Los Ranchitos, . residents of Los Rancbitos expressed concerns regarding these high rise structures. However, based ou the 45 foot height litnitation in the General Plan, and the Planning Commission's historical record of opposing exceptijlns to this limit (I.e. rejection of the four level parking structure originally submitted by the Rancho Community Church for its new project .. , located on Highway 79 just a few hundred yards from the proposed hospital), we felt the Planning Commission would reduce the height of these buildings to a reasonable level. . Since these early meeting,s, the following negative elements have developed, which have alienated local residents who were inclined to work with the hospital group and city planners to see if their concerns could be mitigated: 1. The city has demanded access to the hospital property from De Portola, which will cause a significant increase in traffic, noise and safety hazards on Ynez, De Portola and Pio Pico. This negative impact will affect the residents of Los Ranchitos, Santiago Estates and Santiago Ranchos. 2. The Planning Commission has initiated no action to reduce the height of proposed building,s, which we believe would result in the tallest structures in the city of Temecula. The height of these buiJding,s would have an extremely negative impact on the existing view of all residents near the proposed project, and change the prevailing rural atmosphere to that of a high rise commercial environment 3. The hospital group and city have indicated that they will require Dartola access only if and when the second phase of the project is undertaken. Despite the filet that this access would provide an alternative to Highway 79 access, the city continues to demand access from De Portola, and Mr. Pmks was recently quoted as saying that if the hospital project is approved, the developer will be required to widen De Portola in front of the hospital site. There is no specific time frame for establishing this critical Dartola access point, and the negative traffic impacts to our community without this access point would be significant Additionally, the traffic patterns established without the Dartola access would likely continue even after it was opened, if and when the second phase of the hospital project was completed. Based on the transition from a positive attitude of compromise to the city's apparent rigid position with regards to many of the negative aspects of the proposed project, the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association felt compelled to make an in depth review of the environmental study undertaken for the proposed hospital project. Our review has raised some very serious concerns about deficiencies in the city's environmental study, and a summary of our findings is attached for your review. We trust that you will give serious consideration to the elements addressed in this study, and we look forward to your response. . In conclusion, many residents of our community feel it would be more appropriate to have the proposed hospital located in an area not adjacent to one of the city's only remaining rural equestrian communities. However, we welcome the opportunity to meet with the members of the hospital group and city planning personnel to explore potential changes that might make this project mutuaJly acceptable at the proposed location. Re74E- D~~e Director, Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association Encl. . . . . April 3. 2005 Mr. Dan Long, Associate Planner City of Temecula, Planning Department P.O.Box9033 Temecuia, CA 92589-9033 The City of Temecula prepared and circulated an Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration forthe Universal Health SeMce5 proposal to construct a new 1/2 million + square foot hoSpital The site Is located north of Highway 79 South and south of De Portola Road,just west of Margarita Road. ThIS IS a developing area with Hmlted retail commercial and professional office uses, bounded on the north of De Portola Road by high quality, low delRoilt residential uses. The referenced residential area IS one of the older established residential communities In the City of TernecuJa and tills comment leUer is beingsubmiUed on behalf of the Los Ranchltos Home Owners Associallon (lRHOA). Based on the current design and the level of Intrusion that the proposed hospItaJ imposes on our existing residential community. LRHOA strongly opposes the current design ot this hospital. TIle comments provided below demonstrate that an EnYlronmental Impact Report (BR) is required before the City of TemecuJa can consider this project, and tile LRHOA strongly beReves that sudl all J:tR is required because a detailed evaluation of alternatives. including alternative locatiOlIS and alternative designs is required to address unavoidable significant adverse environmental effec:b. fTom implementing the proposed project. Detailecl comments on specifacsections ofthelnitialStudy are provided below. but there isOlle fatal flaw that pervades this dOcument. In many sections, the analysis and subsrantiatlon In the Initial Study rely upon findings In the Temecula General Plan E1R. There are two reasollS why this Is a falalftawforthe JlI'l)JlO5ed hospital project. F"1ISt and most egregIous,lhis project Incorporates a Geneml Plan Amendment and ZOne atange. It is oIWious that this project IS a radlcallntensJflcatlon of land use at the project site. As a resuJt. none of the data In the Cenenll Plan E1R can be reUed upon to sub$tantiale the findings In this Inlllal Study because the adopted General Plan BR does not inctude the proposed land use all part of lt5eva1uatJon. Therefwe, all findings that cite the General Plan E1R analysis have no factual basis of support and must be evaluated on the propose project's Inclependent merits, Indudlng potential Impacts of lhe proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone atange. Second. and eqll8lly important, the Initial Study purports to rely upon a 12-15 yealold General Plan ElR. this E1R was certlfted In j.993. and much of the data were developed prior to this . date. When citing a previoUS ElR, the City must conform with the requirements in Section 15162 of the State ceQA GuIdelines. SectIon 15162 of the State ceQA Guidelines states: (a) When an BR lIaS been """tifiedora neptne declaration adopted fOra ptl)jeCt, nosUb$eqUellt ElR shall be prepared for that project unless that lead agency detet'mlnes. on the basis of substantial evidence in the ligllt of tile whole reoord, one or more of the following: a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project whkh will require m<tior revisions of the pnwIOuS BR or Negatfve Dedaratlon due to tile IllVOIwment of new significant environmental ell'ects or a substantial increase in the severity of prevlowsly Identified significant effects; b. Substantial changes occur with re$ped to the circumstances under which the project Is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous ElR or lVf.il8f1ve Declaration due to tile ~t of new significant enVIronmental ell'ects or a substantial increase In the severity of preVIously Identified significant effects: or c. Newinformationofsubstantial importance, which wasnotknown and could not have been Imown with the exen:Ise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous BR was ...",Utit;J lJ$ complets or the Negatne Declaration was adopted. shows any of the following: a. The proJed WIll haw one ormore stgnificantell'ects not discussed in the previous E1R or Negative Declaration; . b. Signiflcanteffecls pnwiousIywmminedwill besubstantlally more severe than shown In the pnwIous ElR; Co Mitigation measures or altematiws previously found not to be feasible would In fact be f_ble. and would substantially reduce one or more SllInltiCMlt effec:f.s of the project, but the project proponents decline to adoptfhe mitigation measure or aitemat1lles; or d. Mitigatlon me&$lires or altematM:s preVIously which an: considerably different from hose analyzed In the prrwious BR would 5Ubstantlally reduce one or more SIgnrt1cant effects on the enVIronment, bUt the project proponents decline to adOpt the mll1garJon measute or altematNe.. 2 . . . . It should be obvious that dramatic changes in the background conditions have changed for almost all the envirOnmental issues contained In the Environmental Checklist Fonn. However, the Initial Study does not provide iUIll detailed discussion of the changes tIlat have occurrvd over tile intervening 12 year period since the General Plan E1R was c:ertified, Relying on 12 year old data Is a majorftaw In the project's initial StudyfNegatlve Declaration because such data are either clearly different In 2005, or require an analysis In the E1R to demonstrate that such 12-15 year old data can be relied upon as "adequate" substantiation for findings In the Initial Study. Ignoring the foIJowlng described Inadequacies in this Initial Study, these two flaws in the Initial Study clearly demonstrate that at a minimum the InftiaJ Study needs to be rewritten and recirculated or, more re8S011ably, needs to be rewritten and an E1R, with possible focus on certain issues, must be prepared. However, It Is the LRHOA's position, that a :1,12 million+ square foot hospital should be examined as part of a fun scope EIR because of the extent of Impacts that thIS project will have on the local neighborhood and the City as a whole. SDeClfic Comments on the Initial Studv The following comments are focused on specjfic pages and issues as presented In the Initial Study. Palfe 1.. ~Dtion: This project description,lIke much of the analysis, does not provide any desc:rlptlon of the hospitals operations or construction activities. For example, how many patients may visit this facility each day on average. How many of the patients will arrive dally In ambulances? How many employees wiD work at this hospital and how many will be onsIte during each shift, assuming that tIUs hospitalwill operate 24-hours perday? Does the hospital have emergency generatOlS that will require onslte storage of fuel? If so, how much fuel and where and what kind of storage system is proposed? What will be dOIKl with contaminated medk:al wastes generated by the hospital? Will this hazardous material be transported through our neighborhood or wUJ it be incinerated? Were emissions from an Incinerator orthe emergency generatOlS provided In the Initial Study, we did not see these data? Will there be a wastewater pretreatment unit on tha hospital site? If so, where? As you can see from these questions, the projec:tdescription contained In the Initial Study does not provldeanyofthe essentlaJ data required to make a comprehensive Impact forecast based on substantJalllYldence. There arv probably 50 more questions that need to be address, rangtngfmm adequacy of utilities currently avallableatthe proJact site (forelUlMp!e adequacy of the exIstIngwatersupply infrastructure and adeqUllCY of water pressure in the eJlistIngwater lines to support fire fighting requirements for a 106-foot blgb structure when the approved General Plan allows buildings of only 45 feet) to helicopter approaches to the hospital and hazards this may pose to surrounding land uses from an acc:ldent. The project desc:rlptlon Is 3 clearly Inadequate to meet the requirements outlined in Section 15124(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states: A genera, description of tile pIOject's technical, economic. and envitonmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals if any and $uppotting publlcseMce facilities. The project descrlptlon utilized in the Initial Study does not meet this minimum requirement and Is cIearfy inadequate. . Similarly, the fnitial Study contains no information regarding the construction of this project. What equipment win be required onsite during the different phases of project construction? WIll pile driving be required for the foundations? How long will c:onstrudIon last? How many constnJction employees wiN be required at any given time.? How many trucks Will be required to dellverequipmentand matertal to the projectslte? A comprehensive construction scenario must be Included In the project II e I [11ptIon for a project of this complexity to ensure that all po....,ti.ollmpadS are identified and to support the impact forecasts for an of the issUes In the Environmental ChecklIst Fonn. The fundamental purpose of the california EnvIroIlmentaI Quaity Act (CEQA) is to Infonn declslon-m8kers. the affected public and fhe general public. The cutrent Initial Study woefully fails to meet this simple test of CEQA compliance. PaD 3. Afl$th8t1cs: The teltt dlscus'ilon In this sec:tJon appears to be playing with words In an effort to avoid acknoWIedgJngthe adverse effect on the sceniC VISta from our hOmeS along De Portola. The text rust states the project is not located near a scenic vista. This is a false statement lIS acknowledged later In the d~~ion "these views are private', There is no distinction In CEQA between public and private views. EitlIer a sceniC vista exiStS or it does not. The text ackllowledges that views to the south from the eJdstIng residences wiD be adversely impacted. This view Is a marvelOuS sc:en/(: vista of Palomar Mountain and the complex topography to the SOuth. ~efore.thellllalyslslnthissectlonlsslmp/ynottrue. Scenlcvlews . will be Impacted. The Ul6foot structure wiI totally alterthescenic VleWto the south for most of the residences located to the north. Furthermore, views from the south to the pastoral landscape in our neighborhood will also be totally altered. As the project Is eurrently proposed, there wID lnevltabl)' be a "substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista". 11I1s Is undeniable and the Cityshould not attempt to IIidesuc:h an obvious Impact behind retionaBa.tions that are not supported by fact. The fact that our IIomes are somewhat higher than the base of the hospital does not mitigate the hnpac:t of this massive structunlS and installation of landscaping wID not hide nor attenuate the buildings effect on scenic vistas. It would take 150 feet tall redWoods planted like a forest to hide this structure and several hundred years for them to reach such IIelght. To ~ address the potential Impact on scenic vlslaS and Ylsual degradation of our netghborhood. the CIty must prepare visual simulations from pertinent views in our area. this wID property chara~the Issue. but it Is our posiIion that the ~ure'5Impact on scenic vistas and scenic resources wID be unavoidable and significant, as there Is no real way to mldgate this structure's effects on our existing scenic views. 4 . . . . Pa"" 4. '--')tics: We have some concerns regarding the hospital lighting, both because of local visual degradation and pl)S!llble conflicts with Palomar. In the Initial Study it Is stated that some of the Clty's conditions may be superc:eded bytheState regarding both engineering and deslgn Issues. this raises the question regardingWhethertheState may require more and diff_t lighllngthan the City or County would allow under Ordinance 656. This issue needs to be clarified. like llO many other Issues. For example, mitigation measure b. requires future submittal of a .photometrlc Plan, including evaluation of helicopter and ambulance lighting requirements. Howewer, there is no perfonnance standard established for this faclllty,110 this measure actually defers mitigation to the future. lhls Is not acceptable under CEQA because the mitigation measures themselves may have adverse impacts that need to be considered by declslolHTlakers and the public- The photometric plan must be submitted and evaluated as part of the Initial Study before the NegatIve Dectaratlon Is adopted, or a set of specific, perfonnanee standards established by the Cilyto assure that no adverse Impact will occur, as claimed In this analysis. Pal!e 5. Al!ric:ulture: Two issues under this section are of concern to us.. Arst, the text states that the property Is not considered .prlme" fannland. However. no attempt appears to have been made to determine Whether the soils are considered to be prime agricultural soils. The point Is these soils have been produc:tlve for agriculture purposes In the pest, and part of the Information needed by the decIsIon-makers Is to understand the possible Ios5 01' prime agricultural soI/$/1and. this document /gIIOres the issue. The second issue of concem Is confusion created by text under 2.c. Please expfaln how.a rapid period of gJowth... precluded the proposed project. this does not make sense. What is meant by this sentence? P"..... 6. AIr Oualilv: The air quality analysis for this JI(Ojec:;t indicates that it will result in a project specjfIc and cumulatlvely significant unavoidable air quality Impact. The Initial StUdy attempts to utiliZe the Ceneral Plan SR lIS the basis for concluding that it Is ok to approve this projel;t based on a NegatIve DeclaratIon. This Is a grave error. First, as the City Is aware. this project Includes a ~I Plan amendment. which means that the POtential Impacts were not addressed In the General Plan EIR. Second, there Is no effort to discuss the difference In emissions 1 oc;iatec! with this propllsed project. Third, there Is no evaluation of the change In emissions within the City, including potential lOcalized air quality Impacts. relative to the forecast contained In the General Plan SA. As a I\l$UIt, the data in this section is clearly flawed ancllnadequate. TheIe are also onsltestatlonarysourceem';~fOO5that may hawebeen ignored by the air quality evaluation. The air quality report 1nd"lCates significance. and there Is more than a fair argument that the imp(emel'ltation of this project has a potential to calISe Slgnlficant. unavoidable adverse aIr quality impacts. .......... 12 and :13. BiokN!v ---......... The biofogy impact analysis Is fraught with so many errors that It Is hard to know where to &tart. First, surveys for endangered species cannot be deferred. Eftherthe species are there or they are not. Such studies cannot be deferred until 5 sometime after the proJect is approved. second, the discussion at the top of page 13, the analysis 19l1OI'es the loss of habitat. The wording selected In this analysis attempts to play down the riparian values on the site but they cannot be ignored. Furtllet, there Is no consistency analysis re/atIVe to the riparian habitat whlch is required as part of the Clty's commitments comply with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The text under 4.b-e actually contradlets the previous discuselOn and the mitigation required relative to riparian habitat on the project site. As noted, future studies are required, a total failure to present data to the pubflC and declslolH118kers. MItigation measures a, b, C, f and g defer mitlgBtIon to the future which is unacceptable. The City must define what Is acceptable mitjptlon from It's perspective now, not later. lJlls allows the public and declslolH118kers to determine whether the mitigation Is sufficient to offset the Impacts.. e Pal!e 1 ~ GeoIol!V and SolIs: One of the dll$$'lcfailuJeS of environmental documents is a failure to evaluate the potential Impacts of mitigation mea5llJeS that wiD be imposed by a projec:t to achieve a less than significant environmental impact. The text discusses and referenc:es the geotechnical imPacts..~ted wItIl tbe project and Identlfleslmplementlngthese measures as a condition of approval (Me Inure a.). However, consistent with the rest of the analysis, the Initial Study does not evaluate the Impacts from Implementing these measures. A classic example would be a requirement for pile driving to provide the building with suffldent protection against earthquakeS. Another is over excavation which results In a longer period of construction nolseand,peater~duslemIssions. These potential Impacts _Ignored and the CIty must consider them before approving this project. These Impacts must be evaluated. Pal!e:l.7.SoII Erosion: Without any analysis or reference to speclfkstandards, the InltlalStudy . concludes -rile project will not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil There Is nOt definition of the type of erosion control measures or their potential effectiveness. No discussion of CIty standards, and lIS far as we und~nd. there are not NPDES standards. l11e standard of comparison is that established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. There is no disamlon of the Board's construction and post-constnJdIon (occupancy) standards and the lIbility of the best management practices to meet these standards.. The analysis of this issue Is clearly flawed and ineffec:tive. PaI!e 1.9. .....,."nk ThIs page contains the statement "the applicant Is required to submit to staff an approved hazanlousmaterlal storage and transportation p1an_." The CIty cannot defer ldehtll')ingand evalUlltingthe hazardous materials, tnlnspolt and waste Issues a5sodatedwlth the hospital, both constnICtion and.........tlons. There are residences directly adjacentto the I1o$pItaI that have a right, no must hme, these data to protect themselVes. We do not have hazardous waste deliveries In our neIgh"1bood at present. This project will bring these materials, albeit in a managed manner, into our neighborhood. We must know what these materiels are; we must understand '-the hospltaI plans to manage these material; alld we 6 . . . . must know hOw to proteCt ourselves if an accident occurs.. The City appealS to be ignoring the Imposition that allowing this hospital Into our neighborhood will create for existlng residents, either because the CIty trusts the hospital or because it does not care for residents and exposute to these new hazardous materialS. The CIty Is required to pruvlde a list of the chemk:als used and other hazardous ac;tivities that may be allowed into our community: and the CIty must evaluate the Impacts and public health risks from these chemicals. The City should be ashamed oflgnorlngthis critical Issue and faUlng 10 giveour neighborhood residents sufficient Information to understand this issue; prepare comments on those Issues that cause a major concern: and ensure that we are prepared to deal with accidents that may threaten our health. The City falIed both CEQA and its eldstlng residents with the cryptic evaluation c:ontai.'1ed In the Inttlal Study. This is a critical, personal issue for which the neighborhood resldenfsdemand an adequate data base for the CltyCoundl and ourselves to make Informed decisions. Pa820. 1bo7Ards:l1le comments regardingevac:uation routes and emetgency response plans Ignores the nature of the proposed project. The irony Ja that with a hospital nearbY, dealing with emergenc;ies could be easier. The negative side of this issue is that the hospital will be a key component of any emergency response plan In the City. The adjacent residents deserve to undelStand how the City"s emergency response plan wIA be reYlsecI and exactJy what role the propoU!l hospital will play In this revised response plan. By definition an emergency response plan involves the movement of people to a hOspital for treatment. What ~ we antJdpate? Could there be circumstances wh_ we could not access our homes, such as In a majorearthqueke asa resutt ofcontrolllngall access routes to the hospitaL Thlslnfonnation is required to undeJstand the full consequences of Plactng the hospital In our nalghborhood. Pile 21. Hvdrolol!VlWater 0Ua1itY: The CIty seems confused, as th_ are no NPDES standards, only a requirement to submit II Notice of Intent to the State Water Resoun:es Control Board. As Is the case with any mitigation. the City cannot defer Identification of measute to compJy with non-poInt source water quality discharge requirements without identifying them and lde..lif)lng suff'lCieI.t best management pra&tIc:es {BMPs) to fulfill theSe requirements. SImply referenclngthem with no definition does not provide the reviewer with sufficient information to evaluate potential compliance, or the effects of Implementing the required BMPs.. For example, what If the project assumes that a detention basin with a filter treab.....4 syStem will be InstaRed on adjacent P-0gettY. Without knowing this proJlOSllI, it Is not possible to evaluate the Impacts of such facIIlties. 1mpac:1S may be minimal, but until defined and 8VlIIuated this fact cannot be known. TIle project analysis does not identify potential operational pollutants; pretreatment requirements; or any other stationary sources of water poIJutlon. However, a hOspital clearly g&neICIt1b contaminated wastewater and it Is~" .tlal that the constituents of the waste water Is deflned. If a pretreatment system Is required, what happens to the residual 7 . . . . April 5, 2005 1fD)~@~ow~m U11 APR 0 6 Z005 WI Mr. Dan Long Associate Planner City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 By RE: P A04-0462 General Plan Amendment/Zone Change, P A04-0463 Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit & PA04-057l Tentative Parcel Map - Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc. Dear Mr. Long: I am an adjacent property owner. I have many concerns about the proposed zoning change. Here are my three concerns for the record. I would like the opportunity to meet with the City on these concerns. My number one concern is about the eight (8) lots being made one parcel. The City would be treating the Hospital development with preferential treatment, by allowing PDO-8 to be divided up. This is a move by the hospital to build higher buildings but they will stick out like a sore thumb if the lots to the east in PDO-8 are not afforded the same zone change. The hospital's three (3) lots are closest to the ranch community of Los Ranchitos. I can see no reason why all the existing lots in PDO-8 would not be changed or none at all as there intended use is the same, office medical; they are all adjacent to the hospital. If the City proceeds with segregating the existing PDO-8 lots any conformity in the planning of the entire block from Margarita west will be lost and this is not in the best interest of the community. The hospital's lots (3 in PDO-8) are the farthest removed from Margarita Road. The balance of the current PDO-810ts are adjacent to more commercial development near Margarita Road and in my opinion they would blend in just as easily. I am in favor of blocking any change to the PDO-8 that separates and/or divides the six (6) lots that are currently under the PDO-8 zoning. Secondly, tall buildings mean more parking requirements and better access to those parking lots and buildings. I purpose parking lot access on the south through the present DPO-8 lots (map attached). This would benefit all owners and future development, which all have medical developments of some type planned. Pulling everyone together for joint planning ideas may be in everyone best interest. My third concern is we have a flood plain on DePortola Road and I have concerns that the City along with the Hospital developers will abundant the flood issue only to pass it on as someone else's problem. At the present time the drainage channel crosses the natural drainage course across Deportola Road and is undersized, see map attached. This drainage channel was put in place many years ago before city hood. Many developments ; have been given the green light including Sparkman School, Paloma Del Sol and other developments upward (north) from DePortola Road. Many other developments down stream have also been approved as well before and after city hood. I believe it is time for the city to act on necessary drainage channel improvement and upsize this culvert to an acceptable size as was done under Margarita Road when Sparkman School was developed. This negative impact in my opinion is not the responsibility of down steam homeowners (like myself) or private party developers but is a tax payers/'public use' issue and the city needs to act on it soon. . Regards, Don L. Rhodes 31625 DePortola Road Temecula, CA 92592 (951)302-3554 . . . . ~ \ \ .., ..' .,..~ .- ~ ...--., ..r.~$" .' - . .~ .- . .. ,.. - .- ..' Q . """ "^- ,T"A April 5, 2005 . TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Regarding April 6, 2005 Agenda Item 4. PA04-0462 HOSPITAL ON 79 SOUTH Dear Chairman Mathewson, Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Olhasso, and Telesio , As Vice President of Santiago Ranchos Home O'.\tners Association, I am bringing . to your attention three problems with the current ~ite plan for the new hospital and also requesting a change in the phasing of ai:;cess construction. Santiago . Ranchos is an equestrian association comprised lof 2 Y:! acre parcels on narrow , rural residential roads immediately to the north o~ the proposed hospital site. . Santiago Ranchos would also like to be on record as in support of Los Ranchitos . HOA in requesting a modified three lane arteri"lJ fpad designation for De Portola Road. Like Los Ranchitos, Santiago Ranchos has tried to be a good neighbor in . accepting a proposed hospital in concept. Howeyer, three aspects of the plan .,H15"efore yoLi threaten to severely and negatively impact bothessociations. 1. Driveway on De Portola cannot be open to routine traffic: When the three lots on De Portola were rezoned by this commission from rural residential to commercial last year, the deal with Los Ranchitos Home Owners Association, in order to release the parcels from the association's CC&Rs, was that there would be NO hospital access from De Portola. The City Engineer has since determined that an emergency alternate entrance for ambulances is necessary should gridlock completely block 79 S. Fine, make it a true alternate emergency entrance by requiring it to be a left-in only, one lane entrance only, with a security gate to which the Fire Department and the Temecula PO hold the keys. Ambulances would always have access in a true dire emergency but daily routine hospital traffic would not. Pio Pico is a narrow rural residential road without sidewalks. It cannot handle the delivery trucks, trash trucks, employee, and patient traffic that would inevitably use Pia Pica as a cut-through to any open entrance on De Portola. . 2. Emergency room is poorly sited: Locating the emergency entrance on the NW c<;lrner of the building, thereby forcing an ambulance coming in the main entrance on 79 S to circle a medical office building, then wind its way through the parking lot, makes absolutely no sense. Place the emergency room on the south side of the bu~ding, move the office building further west, or realign the main entrance, do whatever you have to do to make emergency room access a straight shot. If you allow the current plan, the hospital will be coming back to you at some point to request a new site entrance near the emergency room at . . the intersection of Pio Pico at De Portola. You can avoid that future fight now by simply requiring the emergency room be near to, and directly accessible from, 79 S. 3. Six story building violates Temecula zoning height limits: Our current zoning restrictions are designed to protect the quality of life and general ambiance of our residential neighborhoods. Three stories, as has'been approved elsewhere along 79 S, might be acceptable, but a six-story building is totally incompatible with nearby residences, especially horse properties. If you allow this exception, it will irretrievably alter the character of southern Temecula. Also, once you have set this precedent, every future applicant with a financial incentive to do so, is going to come up with absolutely compelling reasons why you must grant him a special exemption, too. Once you let the horse dut of the barn, there's no going "- back and the Planning Commission and City Council will be hard pressed to . prevent even higher rise buildings in the future. ifhere is no compelling reason for a six-story exemption on this site other than Universal Healthcare wants to --' _"c~~_us.eJhe_samebuUdlngJfesignth;:lt WQLlss well forJh(3m iI1_CJnQtb~Lstate._____,. .' , "Unfortunately, theplarinedbuilding will ,forever destroy the feel andc:haracter of the adjacent residential neighborhoods and should not be allowed. ~.~. , .. . . Finally, I would also request that the order of access completion be changed. If 'the nosPillil' constructron IS priase-7,TI1'eififll:l1 e,sn67ieE'lcff6Ta1'f'a'1ternate 7W" '. -- emergency ambulance access from De Portola until phase 2. Conversely, the Dartolo entrance will be needed for patient access to the phase 1 medical buildings. Therefore, whatever approvals you grant should be conditioned that the Dartolo entrance be opened as part of phase 1 and that any De Portola access be postponed until phase 2. - _...0.--'00 '-_-'-'-''=-:C..~';:~_==;,;~:''';","~' Thank you for your consideration in protecting the interests of Temecula residents and the quality of our long established neighborhoods. Sincerely, ~~~ Kenneth G. Ray Santiago Ranchos Home Owners Association 31647 Pio Pico Road Temecula, CA 92592 951-302-1035 ce . . " MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 6, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Chairman Mathewson led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: Chiniaefl. PUBLIC COMMENTS None at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 6, 2005. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 2, 2005. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of March 16, 2005. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. R:IMinulesPC1040605 .. COMMISSION BUSINESS . New Items 3 Plan nino Application No. PA04-0594. a Development Code Amendment for Supplemental Alcoholic Beveraoe Sale Reouirements recommendino that the Citv Council adopt an ordinance reoardino supplemental reouirements reoulatino the sale of alcoholic beveraoes for certain tvpes of businesses and to provide locally appropriate criteria for State-re~uested Findinos of Public Convenience or Necessitv Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of written material). Commissioner Guerriero concurred with staff's report, but requested the following modifications: . That the requirement No beer or wine shall be displayed within 10 feet of cash register or the front door be changed to 5 feet. . That a requirement be added imposing that sales staff be trained by or through the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) prior to approval of a Conditional use Permit (CUP). Principal Planner Hogan noted that a condition could be added that requires staff training by or through the Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) prior to the opening of the business. Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Principal Planner Hogan offered the following comments: . That the proposed requirements as stated in staff's report would not be imposed on existing facilities . . That if a temporary church and a business selling alcohol were located on a Commercial or Industrial Zone, the 500 foot requirement would not be applied. . That if the sale of hard liquor is the predominant product sold in a store (50% or more), it would be classified as a liquor store; if not, it would be considered a convenience store . That previously imposed requirements regarding the sale of alcohol would be replaced by the proposed four requirements in staff's report. At this time, the public hearing was opened but due to no speakers it was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approves staff's recommendation subject to the two following conditions: That no beer or wine shall de displayed within close proximity (no closer than 5 feet) to the cash register and front door and that sales staff receive training by or through Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) prior to the opening of a business. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. . R:\MinulesPCI040605 2 .' ". PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.08, 17.10, AND 17.34 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE LIQUOR STORES AND SIMILAR USES AND TO FURTHER CLARIFY OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESSES SELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (PLANNING APPLICATION 04-0594)" 4 PlanninQ Application No. PA04-0462. PA04-0463. PA04-0571. a General Plan Amendment. Zone ChanQe. Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map submitted bv Universal Health Svstems. Inc. to construct a 320-bed hospital facilitv and helipad. two medical office buildinQs totalinQ approximately 140.000 square feet. a 10.000 square foot cancer center. and an 8.000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totalinQ approximate Iv 566.160 square feet on 35.31 acres. located on the north side of HiQhwav 79 South and south of DePortola Road, approximate Iv 700 feet west of MarQarita Road . Assistant City Attorney Curley stated for the Planning Commission, staff, and the public that the proposed project will be subject to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); that the public hearing will be opened to collect specific concerns that would need to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and that as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process, there would be another opportunity for public comment and review on the environmental document at another time. I Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (of written material), noting that staff has \ worked closely with the applicant, the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association and City Council sub-committee comprised of Councilman Naggar and Mayor Comerchero and that Condition of \ Approval No. 11 should be modified to impose that the applicant shall work with the emergency \ providers in local areas to reduce the use of sirens within the vicinity of the hospital and within '-...rslsidential areas. COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to the Commission's query regarding Pio Pico Road, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that the lower (southern) section of Pio Pico Road will be needed for the proposed project advising that the City will be vacating the southern portion and that the City will be retaining the upper (northern) portion of Pio Pico Road, noting that it would not be the intent of the City to develop the upper portion (northern) but that this portion will remain on paper as an access. It is the opinion of Director of Public Works Hughes that the horse trail on the southern end of Pio Pico Road will still be useable. . For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Long noted that the applicant will be required to coordinate with local emergency service providers to minimize the use of sirens near the hospital and residential zones. R:IMinutesPCI040605 3 r- ) .' Public Works Director Hughes commented on the need for the Dartolo Road extension, advising that because of timing and cost of this extension, it was approved as a Condition of Approval for Phase II; that the DePortola Road connection will be valuable to the hospital; and that the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road signal is extremely close to SR 79 South and may hamper, at a future time, the ability to move traffic through the Margarita Corridor. . It was also noted by Mr. Hughes that the DePortola Road driveway access will be full-turning movements with the exception that the left-hand turn out would be restricted, noting that one could turn left in but could not turn left out to go westbound. For Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Long noted that the project has been designed to be compatible with the rural residential character by including multi-use trails, split rail fencing, and landscaped buffers as conditioned along DePortola Road. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Don Pyskacek, Vice President of design and construction from Universal Health Services, representing the applicant, offered the following comments: . That the hospital is vitally needed in the community . That the project will not include a trauma center which would be a much higher level of service . That currently there is no definite timing between Phase I and Phase II; and that Phase II of the project would be planned to accommodate future City needs. . The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: . Ms. Dee Messing Mr. Del Ross . Ms. Rebecca Weersing Ms. Charlottte Gust . Ms. Pauline Nelson Mr. James Gust . Mr. George DiLeo Mr. Tim Nelson . Mr. Brad Stormon Mr. Jerry Hizon . Mr. Sal Salazar Ms. Angie Canales . Mr. Neal Ziff Mr. Jeff Tomaszewski . Mr. Don Stowe Ms. Theresa Hizon . Mr. Jack Williams Ms. Dee Dee Polzin . Mr. Raymond Bennett Mr. Kenneth Ray . Ms. Kathleen Stowe Ms. Carol Charnock . Mr. Gilbert Schultz Ms. Linda Doucet . That increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses . That noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation has not been adequately addressed . That access from DePortola Road would not be desired by area residents, if required by . City, it should be gated for emergency access only R:\MinutesPCI040605 4 '. . . " . That access from Dartolo Road should be included in Phase I of the proposed project . That all of Pio Pico Road south of DePortola Road should be vacated . That the hospital towers are too tall and not consistent with the area . That the proposed site is not an appropriate site for the proposed project . That a helipad and helicopter will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses . That due to increased runoff resulting from the proposed project, a storm water plan should be prepared . That the rural country atmosphere must be protected. Mr. Dennis Grimes, Los Ranchitos resident, spoke in favor of the proposed project. At this time, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION For the Planning Commission, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that it is his opinion that the sub-committee assigned to the proposed project is in full support of the proposed project and conditions as presented. Commissioner Telesio noted that it is his opinion that the use of five helicopters a month should not create a significant amount of noise. Commissioner Olhasso noted that until issues of litigation are resolved with the proposed project, she will not be able to work with the Equestrian Preservation Group. In regard to the focused Environmental Impact Report, Commissioner Olhasso stated that the following issues must be further investigated . That staff explore the construction timing of Dartolo Road improvements versus DePortola Road improvements . That staff analyze the impacts concerning equestrian uses in the area . That staff study conflicts on DePortola Road . That issues with the regard to height of the proposed project be addressed . That emergency room relocation be considered . That potential noise with regard to flight path be addressed. Considering public testimony, Chairman Mathewson noted that the Planning Commission and staff will be consolidating issues/concerns and will be returning to the Planning Commission with a recommendation as to what the Environmental Impact Report should be addressing. R:IMinulesPC1040605 5 , .) .. MOTION: It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue the Item to the April . 20, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she will be emailing her a response as to whether or not the Code Enforcements Reports are in working order. In response to the Commission's query regarding stone versus pre-cast concrete at the Bel Villagio Center, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that she would need to explore the issue. Chairman Mathewson expressed his concern with the Rebel Nail Salon at the Promenade Mall, noting that on the weekends the Salon uses 40 to 50 advertising signs and requested that Code Enforcement explore the issue. For Chairman Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she has made phone calls in regard to the mining issue on Rancho California Road but that no one has returned her calls, but advised that she will continue to pursue the matter. Director of Public Works Hughes noted that he will also explore the mining issue on Rancho California Road. Commissioner Guerriero expressed concern with bottom dump trucks traveling in the fast lanes at high level of speed on Rancho California Road and queried on the possibility of restricting bottom dump trucks from the fast lane. . In response to Commissioner Guerriero's concern, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that he would explore his concern. Commissioner Guerriero requested increased traffic officers to patrol the Rancho California Road. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske reminded the Planning Commission of the luncheon with the architectural consultant, telecommunication consultant, and landscape consultant being held on Monday, April 11 , 2005, at 11 :30 a.m. Ms. Ubnsoke also relayed that Associate Planner Long will be leaving the City to pursue a new endeavor. The Planning Commission wished Mr. Long best wishes. . R:IMinutesPCI040605 6 '. . . ,- ADJOURNMENT At 9:10 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetina to be held on Wednesday. April 20.2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dave Mathewson Chairman R:\MinutesPCI040605 7 Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning ~;, ~' ~;:o_ I . ATT4CHMENT NO. 16 i _ _~ _ PLANNING COM.MISSION AGENDA PACKET ~PRll 6, 2005 '. """. .:;,--,. R:\C UP\2004\04~0463 Temecul~.Reg~9~~_:i;~_~,oSpila]\P<; . . . STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: April 6, 2005 Prepared by: Dan Long Title: Associate Planner File Number PA04-0462 PA04-0463 PA04-0571 Application Type: General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit Tentative Parcel Map (32468) Project Description: Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction; a zone change to change the zoning of the project site from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt section 17.22.200 through 17.22.206, including the PDO text and Development Standards; a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320 bed hospital facility and helipad; a Development Plan to construct a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres; and a Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel, also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959- 080-007 through 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 and PA04- 0571). Recommendation: D Approve with Conditions D Deny D Continue for Redesign o Continue to: [8J Recommend Approval with Conditions D Recommend Denial CECA: D Categorically Exempt (Class) D Notice of Determination (Section) D Negative Declaration [8J Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan DEIR R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC~STAFF REPORT.doc I PROJECT DATA SUMMARY . Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc. General Plan Designation: Professional Office (PO) Current Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay District 8 (DePortola Road PDO-8) Planned Development Overlay District 9 (Temecula Hospital PDO-9) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: North: South: East: West: Lot Area: Vacant Very Low Density Residential (VL) Highway 79 South, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CC) Professional Office (PO), Highwayrrourist Commercial (HT), PDO-8 PDO-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay) 35.31 Acres . .36 Total Floor Area/Ratio Hospital: Medical Office Building No.1: Medical Office Building No.2: Cancer Center: Fitness Rehabilitation Center: 408,160 square feet 80,000 square feet 60,000 square feet 10,000 square feet 8,000 square feet TOTAL: 566,160 square feet Landscape Area/Coverage 33.3% Parking Required/Provided 633/1278 BACKGROUND SUMMARY On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services, Inc. submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. These applications comprise a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation and corresponding two story height restriction of the Z2 overlay from the Land Use Element of the General Plan, change the zoning from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay District No. 8 (DePortola Road PDO-8) to a new Planned Development Overlay District No. 9 (Temecula Hospital PDO-9), including the new PDO-9 text and development standards, construct a 320 bed hospital facility, a helipad, two medical office buildings, a cancer center . and a fitness rehabilitation center totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres. R:\C U NOO4\04...Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc 2 . . . On November 4,2004, the applicant submitted a Tentative Parcel Map (32468) to consolidate eight lots, including a portion of the Pio Pico right-of-way (South of DePortola Road) into one lot. Staff prepared an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project. The Initial Study was circulated for a 30-day public review period beginning on March 4, 2005 and ending on April 6, 2005. Because the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change, Planning Commission review and City Council approval of all applications is required. The applicant has proposed the project in Temecula, citing rapid growth in population throughout the region as creating a need for additional medical treatment facilities. The applicant currently operates two facilities in the area; one in the City of Murrieta and one in Wildomar, both of which are operating at, or near, maximum capacity. During the last four months, the Inland Valley Medical Center in Wildomar has operated at 95% + of its capacity of 80 beds and Rancho Springs has operated at 88% + of its capacity of 86 beds. While both of these hospitals have future expansion plans, the anticipated population growth in the region 'will require additional hospital and emergency medical services beyond the capacity of these existing hospital facilities. No other hospital facilities exist within the immediate area; the nearest hospital facilities are located in Fallbrook, Riverside and Moreno Valley. The proposed project is located adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Staff has worked directly with the applicant, the surrounding property owners and representatives of the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates Home Owners Associations to identify key issues of concern. In addition, a City Council Subcommittee (Mayor Comerchero and Councilman Naggar) was formed to meet to discuss the project. The City Council subcommittee formally met with the applicant and staff on September 27, 2004 and October 11, 2004. Staff met with the Santiago Estates Home Owners Association on December 6, 2004, and held a community meeting on December 8, 2004. The community meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding home owners within 600 feet from the project site and approximately 45 residents and landowners were in attendance. The primary issues of concern that were raised through the various meetings with staff and the public include the following: . Traffic and circulation (access points) . Building height and views . Compatibility with residences . Noise . Helipad (location and number of flights) PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction from the Land Use Element for the project site (Figure 2-5, page 2-36 and Table 2-9 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan). The proposal will amend Figure 2-5 and page 2-36 and Table 2-9 to eliminate all references to the Z2 area. The elimination of the Z2 overlay modifies the building height limit on this site and would have reverted to the underlying PO zoning limit of 75 feet. However, the applicant has R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc 3 submitted a PDO document with the zone change application, which will modify the height limit . to 115 feet. Zone Chanqe The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay District No. 8 (DePortola PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay District NO.9 (Temecula Hospital PDO-9). The PDO document prepared with the application effectively raises the building height limit for this site to 115 feet. However, the PDO text clarifies the allowances for increased building height as follows: "The development standards set forth in Section 17.08 for the Professional Office Zone shall apply to this PDO with the exception of the following. No more than 30% of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot maximum building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this Section, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines the roof area': Conditional Use Permit The underlying PO zoning regulations require a conditional use permit for hospitals and helipads. The proposed hospital will be a full service facility operating 24-hours a day, seven days a week. Services provided at the hospital will include emergency treatment, outpatient surgical services, inpatient surgical services, acute care inpatient services, intensive and cardiac care services (ICU/CCU). In addition, comprehensive departments of radiology/ . imaging, cardiology, laboratory and other outpatient services will be provided. The project will not include a trauma center. The helipad is located on the north side of the hospital, on the eastern portion of the site. The applicant has stated that the helipad will be used to transport patients to other facilities requiring specialized treatment and they expect 5-6 flights per month. Development Plan The Development Plan consists of a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two (2) medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres. Access/Circulation There are two primary access points, both of which are located along Highway 79 South. The primary access point along Highway 79 South aligns with Country Glen Way and will require the installation of a traffic signal (Condition No. 90 a.i). The other access point along Highway 79 South is located further west and will be a right in-right out only access point. A secondary driveway is located at the northeastern portion of the project site connecting to DePortola Road and will be designed to prohibit left turns from the project site (right-out only). Staff has conditioned the project to provide another access point from the project site to Dartolo Road, with a bridge to be constructed over a f100dway (Condition No. 91a). The project site will also have internal access connecting with the Rancho Pueblo PDO to the west. . R\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\PC~STAFF REPORT.doc 4 . . . Based on the Development Code parking regulations, the site is required to provide a minimum of 633 parking spaces and 1278 spaces have been provided. The parking lot will be constructed in phases to coincide with the development of each building. Site Design! Architecture The hospital building will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will include a single story structure and six (6) story tower housing approximately 170 beds. The second phase includes a five (5) story tower housing the remaining 150 beds (320 beds total). Medical office building No. 1 (MOB #1) is four (4) stories, 80,000 square feet, and located immediately to the west of the hospital. Medical Office Building No.2 (MOB #2) is three (3) stories, 60,000 square feet and located immediately west of MOB # 1. The cancer center is a single story, 10,000 square foot building located immediately to the east of the hospital. The fitness rehabilitation center is also a single story structure, approximately 8,000 square feet and is located north of the hospital, along DePortola Road. The helipad is located on the eastern portion of the site, north of the hospital building. The project proposes a Spanish style architectural design for all buildings. The building design features the use of earth toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze tinted glass and Indian red tile at the base. The hospital towers are divided by an octagon-roofed rotunda. The hospital, medical office buildings and the cancer center each include a porte-cochere covered entry. The hospital building is required to obtain building permits from the California Oflice of Statewide Health and Planning Development (aSH POD) and is exempt from City structural review and building permits. The two medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center will be required to obtain building permits from the City of Temecula Building Department. Therefore, staff has modified the timing thresholds of the hospital building for the implementation of various conditions of approval to coincide with OSHPOD submittal requirements. Landscaping Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25 foot wide bermed landscape planter along Highway 79 South, consisting of 24" box and 15 gallon California Pepper trees, Sycamores and assorted shrubs; DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line consists of 24" box and 15 gallon Afghan Pines and Silk Trees; a 50 foot wide planter along the western property line of assorted street trees: and an informal planting of natural turf and assorted trees along the eastern property line. The overall site will include 20% 36-inch box (approximately 176 trees), 30% 24-inch box, and 50% 15 gallon trees. Tentative Parcel MaD The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) legal lots into one contiguous parcel. Included as part of the Tentative Parcel Map is a request to abandon the southern portion of Pio Pico Road. The portion requested to be abandoned is not built and will not result in any street closures. Environmental Assessment Staff determined the project could have potentially significant environmental impacts and an Initial Study was prepared. The environmental factors that were studied were aesthetics/visual, air quality, archaeological, flood plain, geological/seismic, noise, population/housing balance, R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc 5 public services/facilities, sewer capacity, soils erosion/compaction/grading, toxic/hazardous . wastes, traffic/circulation, water quality, land use and light and glare. Staff required technical studies be prepared to address each of the identified potential impacts. ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment to allow for increased building height is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Goal 2 on page 2-10 of the Land Use Element: "A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development': Goal 1 on page 2-9 of the Land Use Element: ':4 wel1 balanced community provides a broad range of land uses that are planned in desirable patterns and intensities. By providing for a balanced mixture of land uses, the City can achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a range of income groups, a viable commercial and employment base for residents and surrounding communities, ample open space and recreational opportunities, and adequate public facilities and services". . Goal 8 and Policy 8.1, respectively, on page 2-15 of the Land Use Element: ':4 City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns". "Provide a pattern of land uses that maintain and enhance the viability of neighboring communities including the City of Murrieta, and counties of Riverside and San Diego though compatible uses and linkages". The amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 Specific Plan overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction as currently shown on Table 2-9. of the Land Use Element. The current General Plan land use designation of Professional Office (PO) will not change as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Through the Development Plan review process, the project has been designed to be compatible with the rural residential character by including multi-use trails, split rail fencing, landscaped buffers, and single story buildings along DePortola Road. Zone Chanqe The proposed zone change to PDO-9 will not change the use matrix of permitted uses for the project site. The proposed PDO-9 includes language allowing portions of hospital structure to exceed the 75-foot height limit. The proposed PDO-9 text modifying the height limit for the site is acceptable because it provides proper flexibility for the hospital building only (and only 30% of the roof area is permitted to exceed the 75-foot height limit). The proposed PDO-9 will not allow additional offices or other areas of the hospital beyond the proposal to exceed the 75-foot height . limitation. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC.STAFF REPORT.doc 6 . . . Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit is required for the hospital and helipad. The purpose and intent of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is intended to allow an establishment of uses, which have special impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance of the use being proposed for a particular location. A CUP provides staff and approval bodies the means to review the location, design, configuration of uses, potential impacts and compatibility with the surrounding area. In order to make the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, staff analyzed the following concerns and identified conditions and mitigations that should be applied to the project. Traflic and Circulation (access points) The primary issues raised during the community meetings included traffic impacts upon the adjacent residential streets such as DePortola Road and Pio Pico. The initial project did not include an access point to/from DePortola. Staff required the applicant to provide secondary driveway access directly to DePortola. Staff felt that alternative access points are necessary due to unforeseen closures along Highway 79 South, which have historically and may again in the future close down Highway 79 South. By having additional access points that are not located along Highway 79 South, the ingress/egress of emergency vehicles remains functional. This DePortola access point is a secondary driveway designed in a manner that will not permit left hand turns from the project site. This will require all traflic leaving the project site onto DePortola Road to travel east towards Margarita Road, away from the residential area. Staff has also included a condition of approval requiring a bridge over the floodway connecting the site to Dartolo Road on the eastern portion of the site (Condition No 91 a). The bridge will allow the future connection to Margarita Road. Building Height and Views The primary issues 'of concern with regard to building height and views, include the two towers that are five (5) and six (6) stories. The applicant has stated that the design of the hospital is primarily based on internal function relationships. The various uses and functions inside of the building must be located adjacent to other critical uses. This includes care rooms, treatment facilities, equipment as well as elevators, stairs and window placement. With the form follows function concept in mind, the design of the building is severely limited in what can be changed in regard to tower location, layout and movement (or relocation) of functioning areas. Recognizing that the nearest tower is setback approximately 210 from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and approximately 630 feet from DePortola Road, and that extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided, staff can make the findings of approval. Noise A noise study was prepared for the project to assess the potential impacts on adjacent properties. Staff's analysis focused on short term construction noise, daily operation noise and noise associated with the helipad. Staff determined that the noise study adequately addresses all of the noise impacts associated with the project and mitigation measures have been added as conditions of approval (see Mitigation Monitoring Program). Short term construction noise will be mitigated by the implementation of measures such as sound blankets (barriers that resemble a blanket draped over a fence to deflect noise) along the R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 TemecuJa Regional Hospital\P<>STAFF REPORT-doc 7 northern property line between the construction activities and residences, hours of operation and . properly tuned equipment. Daily operational noise will be mitigated through the design of the project and conditions of approval, which include landscaped berms, orientation of mechanical equipment and loading areas away from residential areas. As a mitigation measure and condition of approval, The applicant is required to coordinate with local emergency service providers to minimize the use of sirens near the hospital and residential zones. Helipad noise will be minimized because the sound levels will only occur for periods of 15-30 minutes for each flight; and the flight path is restricted to the Highway 79 South and commercial corridors, unless environmental conditions do not allow for such path of travel (CUP Condition of Approval No. 10). Light and Glare Staff required the applicant to locate all ground mounted lighting as far away as possible from the residences. All free-standing lighting in the parking lot is consistent with the setbacks set forth in the Development Code and Design Guidelines. All lighting is conditioned to comply with Ordinance 655, which requires all exterior lighting to be shielded, directed down and utilize low pressure sodium. In addition, staff has added a mitigation measure for all windows above the second floor (medical offices and the towers) to include glazing or tinting to reduce the amount of glare from the upper stories. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant is required to submit a photometrics plan showing light levels for the project site and at property lines (Development Plan Condition No. 36). . Hazardous Materials Medical facilities typically dispose of hazardous wastes and low level radioactive materials. The handling and disposal of this type of waste is regulated, monitored and enforced by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department. Prior to occupancy of the hospital, a Hazardous Materials Management Plan is required to be submitted and approved by Riverside County Health Department (Condition No.4 and 129). This plan is kept on file and is accessible by the Fire Department. Development Plan Access/Circulation The access and circulation of the project will not adversely impact the adjacent roadways. The following improvements are required to be installed and operational prior occupancy of any building in phase I: Installation of traffic signal at Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way, including a dedicated right turn lane along the westbound lanes and restriping of through lanes and turning lanes at this intersection; DePortola Road access point and roadway improvements; Highway 79 South and Redhwak Parkway (Margarita Road) southbound and eastbound right turn signal overlap; and improve Dona Lynora with half street improvements and restrict movements to right in/right out vehicular movements. Prior to the certificate of any occupancy for any building in phase II, internal access from the project site shall be provided to Dartolo Road. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC-STAFF REPORT-doc 8 . . . The project is consistent with the parking standards as set forth in the Development Code for hospital and office facilities. There are a total of 1,278 parking spaces proposed, only 663 are required. There are also 3 bicycle racks providing a total of 40 spaces, 34 spaces are required. Site Design/Architecture The site design and architecture, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The project site is designed in a manner that complies with the development standards. The architecture meets the intent of the design guidelines. The colors and materials are consistent with the Spanish architectural style proposed by the applicant. Each building maintains the three components required for each building, including a tile base, stucco body and Spanish roof. The applicant added a band below the fourth story windows of the towers to break up the massing, which reduces the blank wall appearance. In addition, the abundance of windows on each building breaks up the amount of solid surface. A decorative rotunda between the towers, adds interest from Highway 79 South and reduces the massing by providing a separate feature between the towers. The entry of the hospital, medical office buildings and cancer center all include a decorative covered canopy. The covered entry defines the primary entry for each building as a focal point. The applicant has also proposed a decorative boulder water feature at the main entrance of the hospital to further accentuate the entry. As a condition of approval, all roof mounted equipment is required to be screened as determined acceptable by the Planning Director (Development Plan Condition No.8). Landscaping The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33% proposed). The applicant has proposed and/or is conditioned to provide landscape berms adjacent to public streets to screen the parking lots. Staff has included conditions of approval to further buffer the residential area from the project by requiring berms and mature evergreen trees such as Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees between the project site and residential areas to the north (Condition No. 35 i, j, and k). Tentative Parcel MaD (32468) The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the Development Standards and Subdivision Ordinance. The project proposes to consolidate eight lots into one legal lot. The proposal is consistent the lot width, depth and lot area for the PDO 9 District. As a result of the recordation of the final map, a portion of the Pio Pico right-of-way extending into the project site would be abandoned. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ~1. An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Comply with Ordinance 655, Fully shielding of lighting fixtures, directed down, landscaping with mature evergreen screen trees, glazed/tinted windows above 2nd floor. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC-ST AFF REPORT-doc 9 Air Quality Comply with AQMD regulations, construct pedestrian paths of travel, maintain waste related enclosures, comply with health department hazardous waste regulations (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), construct RTA stage area, plant native drought resistant landscaping, watering down site during grading for dust control (SCAQMD Rule 403), 15 MPH zone for on-site construction traffic, Fuaitive Dust Control Plan is required. Biological Resources U.S. Army Corps Permits, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Game clearances, Focused Burrowing Owl study 30-days prior to grading, bridge construction shall utilize supports outside the flood channel, focused studies for construction between April 15 and July 15 {Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Flvcatcherl. Cultural Resources Pre-excavation agreement with Pechanga, Monitoring for cultural and paleontoloqical resources. Geology and Soils Over-excavation and 90% recompaction, grading shall comply with 1997 UBC. Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Management Plan is required subject to aooroval of Riverside Countv Health Department. Noise Provide a 6-foot high (or higher) sound blanket between project site and residences abutting project site, submit maintenance records of construction equipment, staging and stockpiling areas shall be located away from residential areas, muffling, screening and buffering of mechanical equipment, emergency generators shall be used for emergencies and servicing only, truck arrival/departure for loading shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, sirens for emergency vehicles shall be shut off no less than 'A mile from site, helicopter flight path is limited to commercial corridors (weather/safety permitting), comply with Section 21661.5 of State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation Administration. TransportationfTraffic Modify traffic signal at Country Glenn and Highway 79 South to 4-way signal, install sidewalks and street lights along Highway 79 South, install left turn pocket (dual left turn lane) at Margarita/Highway 79 South intersection, provide access driveway to DePortola, pay DIF and TUMF, pay fair share contributions, connect Dartolo Road to Margarita (including vehicular access bridge). CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has identified various issues of concern. In addition, staff has prepared an Initial Study, which has identified potentially significant environmental impacts. Staff has included conditions of approval and has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program which addresses these concerns and reduces the potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, PA04-0463, and PA04-0571 based upon the findings and the attached Conditions of Approval. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC>ST AFF REPORT-doc 10 . . . . . . The proposed project provides a multitude of benefits and services that are needed within the community. The project is considered an economic benefit because the City will now have a regional health care facility that will attract additional medical services, medical offices and related uses and facilities. In addition, quality health care is a desired element that is sought after by companies looking to establish themselves and/or relocate to the City of Temecula. FINDINGS 1. General Plan Amendment a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding area. 2. Zone Change a. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map. The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan Amendment, the site is physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in this area, and the proposed zone change would further the City's long-term economic development goals. b. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the diversity of uses desired in the General Plan and will create a balanced community with additional public services available to the community. 3. Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E) a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320 bed hospital facility and a helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City of diversified dellelopment character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns (Goal 8)". The proposed project provides a regional use that needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC~STAFF REPORT.doc II b. low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the State highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the Conditions of Approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn 011 sirens no less than 'A from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site is designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320 bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is c. d. R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT-doc 12 . . . . . . e. for a 320 bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (aSH POD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.1 0.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels. 4. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the General Plan. b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes. 5. Tentative Parcel/Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400 a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment; b. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract; c. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant; d. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc 13 are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the Application; The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; . e. I. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided; h. The subdivision is a commercial/office project and is not subject to Quimby fees. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Reductions (Under Separate Cover) - Blue Page 15 2. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Mitigated Negative Declaration) - Blue Page 16 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_ 3. PC Resolution No. 2005- _ (General Plan Amendment) - Blue Page 17 Exhibit A- City Council Resolution 05-_ 4. PC Resolution No. 2005 _ (Zone Change) - Blue Page 18 . Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance No. 05-_ 5. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Conditional Use PermiVDevelopment Plan) - Blue Page 19 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_ 6. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Tentative Parcel Map) - Blue Page 20 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_ . .R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REpORT.doc 14 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PLAN REDUCTIONS (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecuta Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT. doc 15 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ (MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 TemecuJa Regional HospilaI\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc 16 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, FOR THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL," GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080- 010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 AND PA05-0571) WHEREAS, Universal Health Services, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; 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 at the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Project); . WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was prepared for the project as described in the Initial Study, including, in the time and manner prescribed by State, local law and CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program on April 6, 2005, at 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; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council adoption Exhibit "A" a Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending the City Council adopt the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit "A" subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. . Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dee.doc 1 Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2005 . David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted b~ the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 . day of April 2005, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske,Secretary . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospital\Dratt PC Raso Mitigated Nag Dee.doc 2 . . . EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ (MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospila~Draft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dee.doc 3 . . . RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080- 010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 AND PA05-0571) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code and an initial study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines; and, B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act; and, C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the application of the Project and environmental review, at which time the City staff and interested persons has an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and, D. 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. 2005-_, recommending the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. E. On , 2005 and . 2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 05-_; Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecufa Regional Hospital\Draft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dee.doc 4 that there was no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. . B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law and copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Planning Department, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92589. C. The City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were discussed at a public hearing of the City Council held on , 2005. D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA. E. There is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment. F. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. G. The Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with law. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Mitigated . Negative Declaration for the Project and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this _' day of ,2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk SEAL] . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC Resa Mitigated Neg Dee.doc 5 . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 2005 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:\C U P\2004\04-o463 Temeeula Regional Hospita~Draft PC Resa Mitigated Neg Dee.doc 6 City of Temecula Planning Department ~CH # 2005031017 Notice of Completion Project Title: Temecula Hospital P A04-0462 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; P A04-0463 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and P A04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map Lead Agency: City ofTemecula Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive Ci : Temecula, CA Zi: 92590 Project Location City ofTemecula, Riverside County Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No.: 920-100-001 through 13 Total Acres: 35.31 CEQA Document Type [ ]NOP ]Earl Consultation Local Action Type [ ]General Plan Update [X]General Plan Amendment [ ]General Plan Element [ ]Community Plan Other Development Type []Residential: Units_ [X]Office: Sq.ft.140.000 []Commercial: Sq. ft. _ [ ]Industrial: Sq.ft._ [ ]Educational: [ ]Recreational: X Other: Hos ital 408 160 S . Ft: Cancer Center 10 000 S Project Issues Discussed in Document [X]AestheticNisual [X]Flood Plain/Flooding [ ]SchoolsfUniversities [X] Water Qnality [ ]Agricultural Land [ ]Forest Land/Fire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [ ]Water supply/groundwater [X]Air Quality [X]Geologic/Seismic [X]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetlandlRiparian [X]Archeological/Historical [ ]Minerals [X]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife [ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing [ ]Drainage/Absorption. [X]Population/Housing Balances[X]Toxic/Hazardous [X]Land Use [ ]Economic/Jobs [X]Public ServiceslFacilities [X]Traffic/Circulation [ ]Cmnulative Effects Fiscal RecreationlParks [ ]Vegetation X Other: Li t & Glare Present Land Use: Vacant Current Zoning: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) General Plan Use: Professional Office Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-X) Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Ma is a re uest to consolidate ei ht 8 lots into one 1 arcel. Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613 Contact Person: Dan Long Title: Associate Planner Phone: (951) 694-6400 Within 2 miles State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 South Airports: N/ A Waterways: T emecula Creek Railways: None Schools: Sparkman Elementary, Rancho Community (private school under construction) [XJNegative Declaration [ ]Draft EIR [ ]EIR (Prior SCH #) Other [ ]Specific Plan [ ]Master Plan [ ]Planned Unit Development [X]Site Plan/Plot Plan [X]Rezone [ ]prezone [X]Use Permits [X]Subdivision of Land [ ]Annexation [ ]Redevelopment [ ]Coastal Permit [ ]City Development Project Acres_ [ ]WaterFacilities: Type Acres 35.31 Employees_ Acres Employees_ Acres_ Employees_ MGD_ [ ]Transportation Type [ ]Mining: Mineral [ ]Power: Type [ ]Waste Treatment: Type [ ]Hazardous Waste: Type Ft: Fitness Center 8 000 S FI. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\NOTICE OFCOMPLETION-Hospital-l.doc 1 REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST Resources Agency BoatingIW aterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Conservation ....I Fish and Game Forestry ....I. Office of Historic Preservation Parks and Recreation Reclamation S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation, & Housing ....I. Aeronautics ..L California Highway Patrol ..L Caltrans District No. -L ....I. Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters) Housing & Community Development Other State & Consumer Services General Services ....I. aLA (Schools) KEY S~Document sent by lead agency X=Document sent by SCH T=Suggested distribution Environmental Affairs Air Resources Board ..L APCD/AQMD ..L California Waste Management Board SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Delta Unit ....I SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights ....I. Regional WQCB # 9 ( Youth & Adnlt Corrections Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission .L Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Land Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare ..L Health Services ) . Public Review Period: Starting Date: March 8, 2005 Ending Date: April 6, 2005 ~~ --,.. Signature ~ Date March 3, 2005 ..> Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable): For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH City ofTemecula Date Review Starts 43200 Business Park Drive Date to Agencies Temecula, CA 92590 Date to SCH Contact: Dan Long Clearance Date Phone (951) 694-6400 Notes: Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc. Address 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, P A 19406 Phone (610) 768-3300 R:\C V P\2004\04-0463 Ternecul. Regional Hospital\NOTlCE OF COMPLETlON-Hospital-l.doc 2 . City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration . PROJECT: . PA04-0462 General Plan Amendment/Zone Change PA04-0463 Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit PA04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map Universal Health Services, Inc, 367 South Gulph Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406 North of Highway 79 South and south of De Portola Road, approximately 500 feet west of Margarita Road. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 004 and 007 through 010. PA04-0462 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change: The project site is located in an area identified as Z2 in the General Plan. The Z2 area is located between De Portola Road, a residential area to the north, a state Highway to the south and Professional Office (PO) and commercial uses to the west and east. The current language restricts the height of buildings within the Z2 area. The proposed project is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation. The zone change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office (PO) and De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay Zone-8 (PDO-8) to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay-9 (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospitals. PA04-0463 A Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to construct approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medical offices, cancer center and fitness center space on 35.31 acres. PA04-0571 A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 32468) to consolidate eight (8) lo.ts into one (1) parcel. The City of T emecula intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it has been determined that this project as mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the Planning Commission intends to recommend the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment are included in the project design, conditions of approval and/or the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this notice will be included as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is March 8, 2005 to April 6, 2005. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City Hall is located at 43200 Business Park Drive. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided through: X The Local Newspaper. X Posting the Site. X Notice to Adjacent Property Owners. If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact Dan Long, Associate Planner at (951) 694-6400. ~ APPLICANT: lOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Prepared by: . (Signature) Dan Lon Associate Planner. (Name and Title) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Notice ofIntent-Hospitall.doc 1 Vicinity Map . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Notice of Intent-Hospitall.doc 2 City of Temecula . Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: Planning Application No. PA04-0462 General Plan AmendmenVZone Change (PDO-9) Planning Application No. PA04-0463 Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit Planning Application No. PA04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map (32468) DISTRIBUTION DATE: March 3, 2005 CASE PLANNER: Dan Long CITY OF TEMECUlA: Building & Safety .....................................( ) Fire Department .......................................( ) Police Department ...................................( ) Parks & Recreation (TCSD).....................( ) Planning, Advance ...................................( ) Public Works............................................( ) .........( ) . STATE: Caltrans ...................................................( ) Fish & Game............................................( ) Mines & Geology......................................( ) Regional Water Quality Control Bd ..........( ) State Clearinghouse ................................( ) State Clearinghouse ( 15 Copies)............ (X) Water Resources.....................................( ) .......( ) FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers........................ (X) Fish and Wildlife Service ........................ (X) .........( ) .........( ) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District ..............( ) Western Riverside COG ..........................( ) .......( ) . CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning ......... .... .............. ......... ...... .........( ) .......( ) RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Clerk and Recorder's Office .................... ( ) Airport Land Use Commission................. ( ) Engineer .................................................. ( ) Flood Control...........................................(X) Health Department ..................................(X) Parks and Recreation ..............................( ) Planning Department.............................. .(X) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ..(X) Riverside Transit Agency.........................(X) ...... ( ) UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District .............(X) Inland Valley Cablevision ........................(X) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve .....(X) Southern California Gas ............~.............(X) Southern California Edison......................(X) Temecula Valley School District..............(X) Metropolitan Water District ...................... ( ) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation .................(X) Eastern Information Center .....................( ) Local Agency Formation Comm ..............( ) RCTC .....................................................( ) Homeowners' Association (2) .............. (X) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Notice of Intent-Hospitall.doc 3 Pro'ect Title Lead A enc Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Project Location Project Sponsor's Name and Address General Plan Desi nation Zoning Description of Project Surrounding Land Uses and Selling Other public agencies whose approval is required City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589.9033 Environmental Checklist Temecula Re ional Hos ital Ci ofTemecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dan Lon ,Associate Planner 951 694-6400 North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and a roximatel 700 feet west of Mar arita Road UHS of Delaware, Inc. 367 South Gulp Road. King of Prussia, PA 19406 Professional Office PO Existing: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8) Pro osed: Planned Develo ment Overla PDO-9 The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468). The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z-2 overlay designation from the General Plan. The Z-2 designation currently limits the height of buildings to two stories within the project area. The zone change is a request to change the zoning of the project site from Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-8 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request t construct approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medica office, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center and a helipad space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. This Initial Environmental Study (JES) has been prepared for the hospital and related medical office buildings. While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in the IES and draft Mitigation Monitoring Program with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to a I onl to the non-hos ital facilities. Surrounding land uses include Highway 79 South and single-family residences to the south, single-family residential to the north, professional office, commercial and educational to the west (currently under construction) and existing offices and commercial to the east. Temecula Creek is approximately 1000 feet to the south and Interstate 15 is located a roximatel 2 miles to the west. Other public agencies which may require approval and/or subsequent permits include: U.S Anny Corps (USACE), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG.), U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS.), Cal Trans, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Riverside County Flood Control, Airport Land Use Commission (AlUC), California State Division of Aeronautics, Riverside County Health De artment. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 1 . Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. x Aesthetics A riculture Resources Air Qualit Biolo ical Resources Cultural Resources Geolo and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials H drolo and Water Qualit land Use and Plannin Mineral Resources X Noise X Po ulation and Housin X Public Services Recreation X Trans ortationfTraffic X Utilities and Service S stems Mandato Findin s of Si nificance None X X X X X X Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or a9reed to by the ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired. I find that the proposed project MAY have a .potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal e onl the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE X DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired. Signature Date Dan Lonq, Associate Planner Printed name For R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 2 c. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic hi hwa . Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ualit of the site and its surroundin s? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ,;,.PBt~,IJ~~f'Yc' .' . .,. ~19,n1~~nt: :' lin'''iilct'' ". ?J:I,q~n,tially,< Slgnifl~'lltUi1re~~:: '::~Mitlgatip'~:; , ", 'nnco"-hfatect ' ",'."" ':', " Les~~Than '::.Si~:rilfleani:.:; ',' ImacL'.., 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: . a. b. ~o -lrri'acL X X X d. X Comments: 1. a. and b.: No Impact According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is not located on or near a defined scenic vista, therefore, there will not be an adverse impact on a scenic vista. The surrounding residential areas of the project site maintain views of mountain areas such as Palomar Mountain. The proposed project includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories high and medical office buildings up to 4 stories. It is anticipated that some private views will be impacted as a result of the project; however these views are private and not considered a public impact to the community. The surrounding residential areas are higher in elevation than the pad elevation of the proposed hospital (see Section 1.c. below for elevation analysis). The difference in elevation will reduce the view impacts because the proposed buildings will not appear as tal. I. In addition, the view of the surrounding areas from the project site will be impacted due to the propose structures on the site. The project site is a private site and does not include public views that are considered a pUblic benefit. The project site is not located on a. defined scenic highway. The project site is currently vacant with no structures, significant trees or rock outcroppings on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Due to the fact that the project site is vacant with no scenic vistas or known resources, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or the quality of the site and its surroundings. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 1. c: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project site is located between a State Highway (79 South) to the south and very low. density residential (2.5 acre minimum) to the north. The residential area is elevated above the project site. The elevation of the project at the nearest footprint of the towers ;s approximately 1,053'; the elevation of DePortola Road is approximately 1,065'; the elevation of the midpoint of Pio Pico Road is approximately 1,101 and the high point of the hilltop residences to the north of the project site is approximately 1,223'. The proposed project includes a 60,000 square foot, three story medical office building (60' height), 80,000 square foot four story medical office building (73' height), a 408,160 square foot hospital structure including two towers of five and six stories (106' height), a 10,000 square foot single story cancer center and an 8,000 square foot, single story fitness rehabilitation center. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site does not include any scenic resources and is not known for its visual character. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is considered an in-fill development site. There is no public viewing areas in the immediate vicinity that would be impacted as a result of the proposed project. While the project will be visible from various residential lots, a less than significant impact is anticipated because the views are considered private and are not considered to be of public benefit. The applicant isA proposing numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine, Coast Live Oaks and Silk Trees along th~ perimeter of the site between the residences and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 3 buildings. The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent residences to the north is greater than the elevation of the pad areas. The building height, therefore will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the residences to the north. e. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare typically associated with a hospital and medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The project will introduce outdoor lighting and is required to comply with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code and Riverside County Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The Development Code and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of one- foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading and circulation areas and a minimum of two-foot candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. In addition, the project includes conditions of approval requiring all outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The two towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors, however as a condition of approval, all windows above the second floor will require glazing and/or tinting in order to reduce the glare. Glazing and/or tinting will reduce the illumination and/or glare from the proposed project. The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. Decorative lighting is allowed, however decorative lighting is required to be shut-off by 11 :00 P.M. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11 :00 PM, the amount of light and/or glare will be reduced during late evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research from the Mount Palomar Observatory. The following are Mitigation Measures and/or Conditions of Approval and are required as a part of the eoposed project and will be imposed via condition or agreement, either of which will ensure the impact is itigated to a less than significant level: a. Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded, directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be shut-off by 11 :00 P.M. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan detailing the proposed light levels for the entire project site, onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate. c. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at project boundaries. d. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall maintain glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare that is emitted from the upper floors. . e. The Applicant shall plant, irrigate as necessary and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15 gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site and include berming or a solid wall with acoustic attenuation along the northern property line and where the project site abuts residential parcels. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels in order to screen aesthetic impacts. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc 4 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-a ricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use? x b. c. x Comments: 2. a. b.: No Impact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15-20 years) the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The project site was historically used for agricultural uses as noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM TechA September 17, 2004. During the mid 1800's the project site was cultivated as an agricultural field. Howev~r~ the project site has not been utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable agricultural resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 2. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project could, because of its regional significance, cause other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some remaining agricultural uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and surrounding areas that could be converted to uses other than agricultural, however the conversion of these lands to uses other than agricullural is not considered a result of the proposed project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of San Diego County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the proposed project. Therefore, the growth of the surrounding area is a result of external economic forces rather than the proposed project. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 5 a. b. c. d. e. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ualit Ian? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existin or ro'ected air uali violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of eo Ie? x x x x Comments: 3. a.-e.: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: An Air Quality Study for the proposed project was A-epared by Regulation Compliance inc.. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, December 16, Wbo. The study identified two primary areas of concern that may cause potentially significant impacts; construction emissions and operational emissions. The below table summarizes the daily construction emissions for the proposed project. Table 1 Dailv Construction Emissions Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibs/day) ROG NOx CO PM10 Construction Emissions 42 266 353 363 Mitigated Construction 42 266 353 184 Emissions SCAQMD Significance 75 100 550 150 Thresholds Exceed Thresholds? NO YES NO YES . The NOx and PM10 emission levels exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels of significance. However, while the NOx and PMlO levels cannot be mitigated to a level that does not exceed the threshold, PM10 can be mitigated to a level much less than without mitigations. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~initial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 6 The below table summarizes the daily operational emissions for the proposed project. Table 2 Dailv ODerational Emissions Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibs/day) ROG NOx CO PMlO Area Source Emissions 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01 Vehicular Source Emissions 81.1 101.64 1071.46 115.4 Total Unmitigated Emissions 81.49 105.47 1073.97 115.41 Unmitigated Area Source 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01 Emissions Mitigated Vehicular Source 76.46 95.13 1002.98 108.01 Emissions Total Mitigated Emissions 76.86 98.96 1005.49 108.02 SCAQMD Significance 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 Thresholds Exceed Thresholds? YES YES YES NO Table 2 above identifies ROG, NOx and CO as exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds levels of significance. Thea primary generator of operational emissions is from vehicular source emissions. Area source emissions such a~. heaters, air condition units and other machines are not considered a significant generator of emissions. The study (Regulation Compliance, December 16, 2004) has concluded that the implementation of the project would result in short-term impacts as well as long-term impacts. The short term impacts are a result of the exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx during construction activities. The long term impacts are a result of exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG, CO and PM1o. The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The Environmental Protection Agency designates areas of Ozone (03), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) as either "Does not meet the primary standards", "Cannot be classified", or "Better than national standards". The primary air quality problems in the area are ozone and particular matter. The Basin has been designated as an "extreme" non-attainment area for ozone. The Basin exceeds both the state and federal standards for ozone and both the state and federal standards for particular matter PM10. The State standard for Ozone (03) is 0.09 parts per million (PPM) for one hour and the Federal standard is 0.12 ppm for one hour. The state standard for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is 0.225 ppm for one hour and the Federal standard is 0.53 ppm annual average. The State and Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO) are 9 ppm and 9.5 ppm respectively averaged over eight (8) hours. The State standard for particular matter (PM1o) is 50 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours and the Federal standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours. The Air Quality Management District no longer maintains a station for measuring air quality standards in the Temecula area. The closest station to the project site is the lake Elsinore station, which was used as a reference station for the Air Quality Study (Temecula Regional Medical Center, Air Quality Study, December. 16, 2004). The study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 16 2004) includes language indicating that due to the geographical location and the wind pattern of the area (Elsinore Convergence Zone), Temecula generally maintains cleaner air quality that other parts of Riverside County. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 7 The most productive method for reducing vehicle emissions aim at reducing vehicle miles traveled. Alternative anodes of transportation, sidewalks, trails, street and parking lot lighting using low-sodium vapor lights, mature wees, drought resistant vegetation, pedestrian signalization and signage at significant intersections adjacent to the project site assist in reducing the impacts from emissions. The above measures are designed into the proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will also be required, which includes incentives for employees utilizing alternative mode of transportation, including preferential parking for car and vanpools, offering flex schedules to employees and encouraging employees to utilize mass transit such as local buses. TDM practices are designed into the. proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. The applicant has proposed a Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) bus turn-out along Highway 79 South, which will provide alternative opportunities to employees. The applicant is required to cooperate with RTA and Caltrans to finalize the location and design of the bus stop. The proposed project may potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is considered non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator in regards to the immediate surrounding area. However, the project site may be a significant pollutant generator for the South Coast Air Basin since the basin is currently a non-attainment area. The air quality study identifies the Temecula area as having significantly cleaner air than the other areas in the South Coast Air Basin. The cleaner air in the Temecula area is due to the geographical location and prevailing wind pattern. While the project site is located within a non-attainment area, the project as a stand along project is not considered to emit pollutants considered significant. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the City of Temecula EIR and as specifically discussed below. _he City of Temecula has adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Citywide General ~Ian. The EIR identified various significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution 93-90, a statement of overriding consideration for these impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Included as part of the statement of overriding consideration were air quality standards and compliance with SCAQMD air quality plan. The application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change; however these applications request a change to the height of the building only. The applications do not request an intensification of the uses allowed, floor area ratio, or lot coverage of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with land use designation within the current General Plan and is also consistent with Ihe development standards (lot coverage and floor area ratio) in the Development Code. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 50% and the maximum Floor Area Ratio 50%. The project site is 35.31 acres (1,538,118.6 square feet). The project proposes a lot Coverage of 15.7% (242,975 square feet) and a Floor Area Ratio of 36% (565,260 square feet). If the hospital project was not proposed, the maximum lot coverage of a commercial or other office project on the project site would be 769,059 square feet (50%). The maximum floor area ratio for the project site would also be 769,059 square feet (50%). The proposed project is well below the maximum permitted lot coverage and floor area ratio permitted in the Professional Office zone. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies within the General Plan. The proposed project is a hospital facility, which will house elderly, ill and others defined as sensitive receptors. The proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receplors to substantial pollutant concentration and could potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Since the proposed project is a hospital facility, it will attract people of age and other ill persons, which may be sensitive to odors, dust and/or other pollutants. .e following Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures will be incorporated on Ihe following titlements as a part of the proposed project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map): R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc 8 a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommended mitigation measures set forth in the Air Quality Study prepared by Regulation Compliance Incorporated, dated December 16, 2004. . Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written proof of the satisfaction of each of the below mitigation measures to the Planning Department. b. The applicant shall properly maintain all waste related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. c. All hazardous materials, bio-hazardous waste, medical service waste and general wastes shall be discarded in compliance with county, state and/or federal regulations. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hospital facility, Ihe Applicant shall submit an approved hazardous waste storage and removal plan from the State of California and/or Riverside County Health Department to the City of T emecula Planning Department. d. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. e. The applicant shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets (Dartolo Road, De Portola Road, and Highway 79 South), to promote alternative transportation. f. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Caltrans for a final location, design and type of stage area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the Ci. of Temecula Planning Department. g. The applicant shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include, but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices and hospital. h. The applicant shall incorporate energy efficiency standards as defined by Title 24 into the project. The applicant shall comply with the latest Title 24 standards. i. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought- resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust and erosion to be conducted at the Applicant's sole expense. j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the Applicant shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative c1ean- fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonable possible. R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 9 . . . k. Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. I. During construction and all grading phases, the project site shall be watered down, to prevent fugitive dust and erosion, in the morning before grading and/or before construction begins and in the evening once construction and/or grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during construction and/or grading activities 10 reduce dust. The applicant shall comply with Rule 403, Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as well as industry accepted best management practices (BMP's). A note with the above information shall be provided on all grading and construction plans and shall be subject to periodic monitoring by City personnel. m. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on-site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Engineer reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the project construction. n. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off-site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. o. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements. p. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant shall post signs on-site limiting construction related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. q. The Applicant shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel (preferably the southeast corner of the project site). r. In addition to the foregoing, all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, but no less than 3 times per day, not including morning and evening watering. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Daily watering shall include complete coverage of the site. City personnel shall monitor on-site conditions and may from time to time, require additional treatment by the Applicant, at it's sole cost. s. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by the Applicant at least weekly to ensure conlinued dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods such as water and roll compaction and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to portions of the construclion site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered to establish and maintain grass growth, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. City staff shall be advised of the election of treatment made by the Applicant. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 10 t. During the course of the project grading and construction, the Applicant shall sweep adjacent streets and roads so as to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at th'a end of each day of grading and/or construction. _ u. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the Applicant shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. v. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. w. The area disturbed by clearing, grading earth moving, or excavation operations shall be no greater than is necessary for project development so as to prevent excessive or unnecessary amounts of dust. x. All the necessary above control techniques shall be clearly indicated on the project grading and construction plans. Compliance with these measures shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 11 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? a. b. c. d. e. f. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interru tion, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan. or other approved local, regional, or state habilat conservation Ian? x x x x x Comments: 4. a. c. d.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: A habitat assessment study was prepared for the project site (Habitat Assessment, Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc., September 14, 2004). The study identified a manmade flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site, which contains riparian vegetation such as willows and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes have also been identified within the manmade channel. The habitat within the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The project will be required, as a condition of approval. to construct a vehicular access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may require Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and potentially clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The presence of the flood channel may also require the approval of Riverside County Flood Control. The study (Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc. September 2004) concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed alteration, placement of fill into the channel and the encroachment into jurisdictional areas. However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge. In addition. if activity within the channel (or for, preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to .cur between April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols shall be provided determine the presence/absence for Ihe Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bel/ii pusi/lus) and the Southwestem Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trai/lii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found, the R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 12 construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow . the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project with Mitigation Measures. . 4. b. e.: No Impact: The project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery sites. The project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan, including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site has been grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord. 8.16). There are some grasses on the project site, however they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the project site. 4. f: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The proposed project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP. The project site is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic plants as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the Burrowing Owl. The study prepared by Amec (September 14, 2004) concluded that the project site contains grasslands, which is potential habitat suitable for Burrowing Owls. The study recommended future studies prior to issuance of grading permits. The following Mitigation Measures are required as a part of the proposed project and enforceable pursuant to the respective entitlement to which each is conditioned: g. a. The Applicant shall submit documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the city Engineer, indicating the type of permits required to construct the vehicular bridge across the flood channel on the eastern portion of the project site. b. The applicant shall submit written verification from the U.S. Department of Fish and Game and . the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determining if any further biological studies or clearances are required. c. Focused surveys for Burrowing Owls are required within one month of any ground disturbing activities. If Burrowing Owls occupy the site, the City of Temecula shall be notified and passive or active relocation of the Owls is required following state and federal protocols. d. The applicant shall construct a bridge using supports outside the channel. e. A qualified biologist is required to be on-site during all pre-construction site preparation of the bridge across the channel. f. In the event any site preparation for the bridge takes place between April 15 through July 15, the applicant shall submit focused studies following standard protocol for the least Bell's Vireo (Vireo be//ii pusil/us) and the Southwestern Flycatcher (Empidonax frai//ii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found on-site, the construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. In the event any further conditions, mitigation measures or other regulatory requirement is imposed by any other agency with jurisdiction over the project, the City may require further environmental review. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT -Hospital-1.doc 13 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x a. x c. x d. x Comments: 5. a.: No Impact: A Phase I survey (Historical/archaeological resource survey report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004) has been prepared for the proposed project. The survey did not identify any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 on the project site. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 5. b and c.: Less than Significant: The phase I survey did not identify the project site as a potential site for historical resources, including human remains. The archaeology survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact that the surrounding area is known to contain historical and archaeological resources; the project site is not known to include any sensitive resources. However, given the known sensitive resources discovered within A>se proximity of the project site, conditions of approval are required. The project site is also a potential site Wr paleontological resources and conditions of approval are required. 5. d.: No Impact: The survey did not recognize the project site as a high potential for human remains. The project site was identified as an agricultural area. While there was significant historical activity around the project site, the project site itself is not anticipated to contain human remains. The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project and shall be imposed as enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the project: a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. b. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent authorized by law. c. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities at the applicant's sole cost. d. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided and preserved consistent with this condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in the Mitigation Measure a above. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc 14 e. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the Historical/Archaeological Resource Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004 and September 16, 2004 respectively, except as modified by these mitigation measures. . i. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological and Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) shall each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. ii. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates and vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they can be identified and permanently preserved. iii. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires alternative treatment. iv. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. v. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and the city of Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any Pleistocene-age or olde.r sediments/resources are discovered, a program shall be prepared wit recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the resources unearthed. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital~1.doc 15 . GEOLOGY AND SOilS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involvin : i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42. ii. Stron seismic round shakin ? iii. Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral s readin ,subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ro e ? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? x x X X X X X X Comments: 6. a. i-iv and c: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the proposed project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA, PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004). The proposed project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the lake Elsinore Fault. The proposed project will not rupture a known fault since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the project site. The Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The site, in its current condition includes subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of structural loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent a negligible corrosive environment with respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive environment with respect to buried metals. The project site has a moderate risk for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor slabs should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement due to soil liquefaction and seismically induced consolidation of soil above the groundwater. The following Mitigation Measures are required as a part of the proposed project and will be established as enforceable conditions on the entitlements: . a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Geotechnical Exploration, prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 and as stated below without deviation. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitai\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 16 i. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend . minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical. ii. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly compacted fill. The depth of overexcavation should extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on- grade and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed. The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a heavy vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D157) until design finish grades are reached. This earthwork should extend at least four feet beyond building limits, wherever practical. iii. The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill materials, including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials, have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an expansion index of less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill. During the course of grading operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches) may be generated. These materials should not be placed within the compacted fill. iv. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be moisture conditioned to slightly above Ihe optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacred-engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of sUbsequen. lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings prio to sloping. . v. Non-structural fill adjacent 10 structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical engineer with consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design. vi. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be removed/scarified; moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on Test Method D1557. Ihe upper 12-inch densification should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base material and not during the initial grading operation. vii. As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial deposits underlie the site. As such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can generally be achieved with conventional earthmoving equipment. viii. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects (Appendix E), and City of T emecula standards. 6. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of tOPSOil.. The project site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 17 control and best management practices (BMP's). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate eo the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6. d.: No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the project is not located on expansive soil, as definedin Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies the soils on the project site as "very low expansion potential" as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004. 6. e.: No Impact: The project site will not ulilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available and approvals from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District for solid wastes and waste water will be required prior 10 issuance of a building permit. The project will be required to connect to the public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and waste treatment facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-o463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 18 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or dis osal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- uarter mile of an existin or ro osed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or pUblic use airport, would the projecl result in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro'ect area? . For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro'ect area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Ian? Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? x 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. b. x c. x d. x e. x f. x g. x h. x Comments: 7. a. b. c.: Less than Significant: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project consists of medical uses and will include the storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials. The proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions (except those discussed in the Air Quality study dated, September 14, 2004), materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit to staff an approved hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 19 7. d.: No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project _. e.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). There are no other Airports located near the project. 7. f.: No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project does include a private helipad, which will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of patients to other facilities. As a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and safe. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project, which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local treatment for the injured, especially in the event of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. The following Mitigation Measures shall be required as part of the proposed project: . a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) that verifies that the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal regulations. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 20 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge re uirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which ermits have been ranted? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in f100din on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of olluted runoff? Otherwise substantia II de rade water uali ? Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation ma? Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures which would im ede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? > '\;1 '!~ ',:Foten~all:f_.;' , v;~oto/1rl_~IIY"', - Slgniflca~:l1nless .' ;iSi9:~ifl#f~-.',' - _,<'M}t1~ati_o~ '.'( ,'1M' aCt},,:-; "::'rico prated .,':';,;"';!: . J~es~.thiin,. . "', , " -$I~,5iii,Ganf~' ',,,',<' ~9;: ~-_ Imacf.,-: },Im act, x x x x x x X X X X Comments: 8. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements because the proposed project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards. An Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required if the project proposes the inclusion of discharge or dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged materials within "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicant is required to consull with the Department of the Army to determine the appropriate permits required for the construction of an access road/bridge over/across the flood control channel located the eastern portion of the site. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 21 8. b.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project is required to comply with local development .tandards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and ground water recharge. There is an existing water well, owned and operated by Rancho California Water District (RCWD), adjacent to the project site to the northeast. RCWD has been notified of the proposed project and no comments of immediate concern have been received at this time. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. c.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project will include an on-site drainage plan; however it will not alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project site includes a flood channel, operated and maintained by Riverside County Flood Control. Riverside County Flood Control has been notified of the proposed project and has not submitted a letter of concern at this time. The City of Temecula Public Works Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on- site drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project _. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. f.: No Impact: The proposed project would not otherwise degrade water quality because the proposed . project is not considered a significant pollutant generator and will not include excessive fertilizer application or other similar materials that could degrade water quality. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. h. i.: No Impact: The proposed project was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan.. Recent improvements of Temecula Creek has resulted in a new 100 and 50D-year flood plain boundary delineation. The Temecula Creek, which is the primary drainage course in the immediate area was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The dredging of Temecula Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements and dredging was completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood Insurance Rate Mate Maps have been issued (FIRM, Community-Panel Number 060742-0010 B, revised November 20, .96). The project site is now identified within the 500-yearflood area. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospitai-1.doc 22 The proposed project site was is located within the Vail lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD owns the Vail lake Dam and has submitted to the City a Dam Inundation report, which includes language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek. An addition. study obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergenc. Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996 further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. The FEMA study shows that the dredging of Temecula Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in the event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of Vail lake Dam. The proposed project will place structures within a 500-year flood hazard area, as identified in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996). The Applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA standards. The proposed project is not anticipated to impede or redirect flood flows. As a condition of approval a drainage plan is required; this plan will address flow and drainage facilities and provide comments and/or recommendation concerning the failure of the Vail Lake Dam. While the current City of Temecula Final EIR identifies the project site as being within the Vail lake Dam Inundation Area, the recent improvements to Temecula Creek have mitigated this potential impact. A revised Dam Inundation Area for the Vail lake Dam is anticipated to remove the project site from the Dam Inundation Area. A leller dated January 29, 1996 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted floodplain boundaries. The leller and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100-year discharge capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500-year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and leller also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 100-year flood energy grade lines and 100-year flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail Lake Dam is a 51,000 acre feet facility. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury. or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Vail Lake is a 51,000 acre-feet facility. The dam is a concrete arch dam with gravity abutment sections. The dam is 4.5 feet thick at the top and 15 feet thick at the lowest point of the foundation. The top of the dam is a parapet wall at elevation 0_ 1,482.5 feet. The dam is located to the south east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in parti. flooding of the Temecula creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for structure loss, however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant loss of structures or loss of life, injury or death on the project site. The channelization of the Temecula Creek from Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 4,200 feet downstream of Margarita Road and the construction of additional bridges at both Bullerfield Stage Road and Margarita Road have allowed the delineation of the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) to be revised as a result of the updated topographic information along Temecula Creek. This updated information affects the flood plain boundaries and the dam inundation area. With the updated improvements and channelization of Temecula Creek, it is determined that the maximum capacity of Temecula Creek has the capability to accommodate the flow of Vail lake Dam in the event of a dam failure. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. j.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coastline which would be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 23 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Ph sicall divide an established communi . Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? x x c. x Comments: 9. a. c.: No Impact: The proposed project will not divide an established.community because the proposed use is compatible and permitted under the current zoning designation and is consistent with the surrounding commercial uses. The proposed project is currently zoned Professional Office (PO) and will not divide an established community or conflict with the applicable land use plan. The long term vision of the project is planned for office uses, which allows for hospitals and professional offices, to provide services to the community. The project is not subject to, or located within a criteria cell for the adopted habitat conservation plan (MSHCP) or a natural community conservation plan. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan ~SHCP) does not identify the project site as a critical site subject to additional studies or review. The posed project includes a General Plan Amendment, which would allow medical and office facilities to xceed the 2 story height limit. Medical and office facilities would be allowed up to six (6) stories if the General Plan Amendment is approved. 9. b.:: Less Than Significant Impact: The project site currently maintains two separate zoning designations. There are three lots that abut De Portola Road, which are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The remainder of the project site is zoned Professional Office (PO). The zone change will change the entire project site, including the three lots currently zoned as PDQ-8, to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan because the project site is designated for uses such as hospital and medical office facilities. All the permitted uses within the current zoning designation (PO) will still be permitted in PDO-X; the primary change that would take place as a result of the PDO is the height standard. A maximum of 30% of the total roof area of hospital facilities are permitted to a maximum height of 115 feet. Roof area is defined within the PDO as the portion of the roof above occupied conditional spaces bound by Ihe inside face of the parapet wall. The project is located along a state highway (Highway 79 South) and there are not any public views that will be impacted as a result of the project. No impact is anticipated as a result of Ihe proposed project. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT -Hospital-l.doc 24 a. ssue~^ Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local eneral lan, s ecific Ian or other land use Ian? " :;:'t,-;\ t)~~~'T;:}\'~<' SS';" '", ess:. "liIf1,. , ,'" ,'.. r'" .:5....'. "fl'IfI' ""~t"'-' 11::-' '.........I~n,_.carJ.;{ 6rated,:< ',) fril'attL'~' 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: '.c,,:)" ,. t~:,-;~~.: X b. X Comments: 10. a.-b.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are considered of value to the region and/or the state. The proposed project will not result in the loss of a locally- important mineral resource because the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc 25 1. NOISE. Would the project result in: ,_:::;~_:<,\:, -:;.:e~t~n~1!Y,-< .- Sighifjcant'- '-'m"aCt x c. Exposure of persons' to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other a encies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive round borne vibration or roundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro'ect? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing withoutthe ro'ect? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the ro'ect area to excessive noise levels? x a. b. x d. x e. x f. x 11. a.-c..: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project site is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road. There are commercial and office uses between the project site and Margariti3 Road, and residences immediately to the north and across De Portola Road. The state highway forms a separation barrier between the project site and the residences to the south. The City Council of the City of T emecula adopted and codified Ordinance 04-11, which allows helipad facilities in Professional Office Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. The Ordinance states the following: Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures from structure to structure of an existing or designated public or private primary, secondary or high school. Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed public park (measured property line to property line). Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures structure to structure) of an existing or future assembly facility having 500 persons or more seating capacity. Private heliports associates with hospitals shall be exempt from this requirement. . The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall not be located within any required yard area and in no circumstance shall it be located within (10) feet from all property lines. In addition, a minimum one-hundred (100) foot setback shall be achieved from adjacent residentially properties. R:\C U P\2004\04-o463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 26 Ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by rotation of the rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction free. . The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic or inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter. Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from the adjacent residences. The nearest school is Sparkman Elementary (existing) and Rancho Community Church (under construction). Rancho Community Church is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. Sparkmen Elementary is approximately 1,250 feet from the hospital structure. The nearest park is Paloma Del Sol park, which is approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. The nearest assembly facility to the project site is Rancho Community Church, which, as stated above is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. The helipad is not located within a yard area and the nearest residentially zoned parcel is approximately 460 feet away from the helipad. Conditions of Approval will be in place to ensure the materials and the surrounding lighting and landscaping of the helipad is consistent with Ordinance 04-11. The proposed project consists of a hospital, medical offices, a cancer center and a fitness center totaling approximately 565,260 square feet. The hospital includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories respectively, the medical office buildings are 3 and 4 stories each, the cancer center and the fitness center are both single story. The proposed project also includes a helipad on the northeast portion of the site. The General Plan allows a maximum noise level in residential areas not to exceed 65 decibels for exterior areas and 45 decibels for interior areas. A maximum noise level shall not exceed 70 decibels for internal commercial and office areas. The City of Temecula General Plan and EIR have forecasted noise levels for this area to be up to 74 CNEL at build-out measured 100 feet from Highway 79 South. The setback of the neareslA proposed structure is a medical office building setback 192 feet from the property line abutting Highway 7~ South. The nearest point of the hospital is setback 310 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 South. The project site is designed to include benning and landscaping along the frontage (Highway 79 South), which will buffer some of the noise. The noise analysis (Regulation Compliance Inc., December 2, 2004) states that the construction of the hospital, office buildings, cancer center and fitness center shall be required to install double-paned windows per title 24 requirements. Said noise analysis also states that structures, including residences with double paned windows will mitigate the majority of potentially significant noise impacts. Compliance with title 24 will mitigate the noise impacts associated with the day to day operation portion of the project. There will be temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during construction activities and during peak hour traffic periods. This will be temporary in nature and are associated with typical commercial development. Hours of operation for construction activities, consistent with the City's noise element in the General Plan will be enforced. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan in 1993 when they approved Resolution 93-90 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and adopting a statement of overriding considerations for the General Plan for the City of Temecula". Resolution 93-90 included a statement of overriding considerations, which recognized significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Those impacts related to air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. The information within the current General Plan (adopted in 1993) is considered valid information, which forms the basis of this initial study. The City of Temecula has been consistent with land-use decisions in relation to the current General Plan and therefore the information is. deemed reliable. The Mitigation Measures in this initial study shall be required upon the adoption of this initial study and the approval of the proposed project as conditions of approval. All Miligation Measures shall be binding requirements of the project approval. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 27 11.d: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The General Plan noise element identifies _the project site as an area that will exceed the maximum CNEL permitted at build-out. A maximum noise level f 65 CNEL is permitted for hospitals and residential uses and a maximum noise level of 70 for commercial and offices uses. The primary source of permanent noise will be generated from the Highway. The proposed project is required to construct berming with landscaping along the frontage of Highway 79 South to reduce the noise impacts on-site and onto the adjacent residential areas. Additional sources of noise are expected from generators and equipment within the mechanical yard. However the mechanical yard is not located near a residence and includes sound walls that mitigate the noise levels at the property to a less than significant level at adjacent property lines (Regulation Compliance, Inc., September 14, 2004). Temporary noise levels above the maximum permitted decibels can be expected during construction activities. The following Mitigation Measures will be incorporated as enforceable conditions of approval as a part of the proposed projects entitlements as stated in the Noise study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004) and the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR: a. All construction equipment fixed and/or mobile, including, but not limited to water trucks, cranes, bull dozers, scrapers, and trucks shall be maintained and operated properly, including maintained mufflers. The Applicant and/or contractor shall provide verification of maintenance records prior to issuance of grading permit. b. During all grading and construction activities, the Applicant shall place and maintain a continuous barrier of 6 foot high (or a height as determined acceptable by the Planning Director) sound blankets along both the projects northern property lines and along all the residential properties abutting the project site. . c. All stationary construction and permanent operational equipment shall be placed in a location such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors, subject to the approval of the Planning Director (Prior to issuance of grading permit and on-going). d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from noise sensitive receptors, including residences, as practical, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. e. Mechanical equipment including, but not limited to heaters, air-conditioners, air handling units, venlilators, trash compactors, generators, and loading bays shall be screened and/or muffled. In addition, the Applicant shall provide buffers, including enhanced landscaping, berming, and/or structures such as walls for acoustical shielding. f. Emergency generators shall only be used in the event of an emergency power outage and/or for service and maintenance. g. Loading docks shall be enclosed on three sides, include a roof or cover, and face away from residential parcels. Truck arrival and departure hours for loading and unloading shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM. h. Sirens from emergency vehicles shall be shut off when within Y. mile of the hospital site unless required to allow for emergency access. i. The helicopter flight path shall be limited to commercial areas to the greatest extent possible unless required in emergency situations or if there are no other safe paths of travel. j. The Applicant shall comply with Section 21661.5 of the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation . Administration. The applicant shall submit written correspondence from the appropriate agencies detailing requirements and approvals from the appropriate agencies prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the helipad. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc 28 k. Sign age shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73. for any site within one-quarter mile of a_ occupied residence. . Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday No work is permitted on Sundays or Federal/State Government Holidays 11. e.-f.: No Impact: The proposed is not located in an Airport Land Use Plan area and there is not an airport, public or private within 2 miles of the proposed project. There for the project will not have a negative impact on surrounding persons or airports because of noise. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitlal Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 29 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: ..,>> :':"~; -'.'p()t~J1ti~fl:Y' .~,Si9riifif~-"i .' ..~:lm 'iict-/; a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of re lacement housin elsewhere? x b. c. x Comments: 12. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is a regional facility, which will add additional medical services to the region. As a result the proposed project could potentially cause additional growth in the surrounding area. However, the southwesl Riverside County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth (residential and commercial) since the mid 1980's without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding community is nearly buill-out with residential dwellings. The proposed project therefore, is not anticipated to induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has already occurred over the last 10-20 years. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. ....2. b.-C.: No Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The _roject site includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center; residential uses are not proposed. The project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or remove/replace existing housing. The projecl will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitlal Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 30 ",(.{ 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. ,'....,..... ., ~v.' ,. 'is~o~l~'h(i~u '1110 Jhfortnatl6rfSbU~ces.." .. a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire rotection? Police rotection? Schools? Parks? . Other ublic facilities? x X X X X Comments: 13. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will provide additional public services available to the community and general public. The project will also provide better emergency medical response and allow for better transport of medical emergencies. The project will contribute fair share contributions through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provide. public facilities and infrastructure. The project will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the pUblic utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project. The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual analysis concerning sewer flows form the hospital and the total flow is estimated to be approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the eslimated discharge volume, the hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity assuming that all hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service the Applicant is responsible for payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee. Estimated connection fees at this time are approximately $1,540,000 assuming the current connection fees structure of $3,843 per Equivalenl Dwelling Unit (EDU i.e. 235 gallons per day). The estimated water supply development fee is approximately $120,000. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Ternecula Regional Hospita~initial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 31 . RECREATION. b. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilit would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? x a. x Comments: 14. a.: No Impact: The project is a hospital and medical office project in a professional office zone. The project will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. b.: No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational aspect to the project. Furthermore, the project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 32 Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or con estion at intersections? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion mana ement a enc for desi nated roads or hi hwa s? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safet risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom atible uses e. ., farm e ui ment? Result in inade uate emer enc access? Result in inade uate arkin ca acit ? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bic c1e racks ? 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. ~I!Y" _,', >::~{'Oj~') n Y.t\les$ '~~lE!$~.J~l!r\',/ ~~n. ," ,,:_~19nmc~nJ;~ '.,:,No rated",;: ';".,-~Im "act0~":,;' "Irii-~act ' X X X X X X X Comments: . 15. a.-c: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: A traffic analysis and supplemental trip generation information have been prepared for the proposed project; (Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Medical Center, Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004; letter from David E. Prusha to Bill Hughes, November 23, 2004). The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Highway 79 South is currently subject to Caltrans jurisdiction. The proposed project consists of approximately 320 bed hospital facility, 407,260 square feet of hospital floor area, 140,000 square feet of medical office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 565,560 square feet. The project will generally be constructed in two phases and will generate a total of 11,458 vehicle trips per day with 865 vehicle trips during the AM. peak hour and 929 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project evaluated all the intersections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road and De Portola Road. Phase one includes approximately 150 beds for the hospital and 80,000 square feet of medical office space. Phase one is anticipated to generate approximately 6,290 trips per day with 474 vehicle trips during Ihe peak AM. hour and 629 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the total trips were assigned to Highway 79 South and 22% were assigned to De Portola Road. As part of the TIA, 17 other cumulative projects in the vicinity of Highway 79 South were included in the study. The cumulative impacts of all these projects when added to the Hospital project will result in a LOS of F in several intersections of the study area as identified in the TIA The TIA has identified several roadway an~ intersection improvements, which when implemented could result in a LOS of D or better in the study are,., intersection. It is important to note that the TIA did not factor in the Dartolo Road connection, which should reduce the impacts to each road and intersection. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 33 The following Mitigation Measures are required as a part of the proposed project: .ior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase I: 1. Modify the proposed traffic signal at the easterly project access (Country Glen) from a three way signal t6 a four way signal to accommodate access to the project from Highway 79 South. 2. Install sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of the project on Highway 79 South. 3. Improve the intersection of Highway 79 South at Margarita Road to provide an additional eastbound to north bound left-turn pocket (dual left) if this work has not already been completed. 4. Connect an access connection from the project site to De Portola Road. 5. Pay applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study area based on the phase I impacts of the project as identified in the TIA Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase II: 1. Connect Dartolo Road from the project site to Margarita Road. 2. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study area based upon the phase II impacts of the project as identified in the TIA Pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). 6. 3. . 4. It should be noted that if the project's DIF and TUMF fees exceed the fair share impact fees of the project, the project will not be responsible for payment of any additional fair share fees for mitigation to off-site intersections, which are affected by the other 17 cumulative projects. The City of Temecula City Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the mitigation measures mentioned above upon final review of the final traffic analysis, subject to and as limited by the substitution requirements of the state CEQA Guidelines 15. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not include the extension, construction or modification of any traffic pattems that would create sharp curves, dangerous intersections or establish incompatible uses that create a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is required to improve intersections and pay fees, however the improvements would not create unsafe public intersections, curves or traffic patterns. 15. e.: No Impact: The proposed project, as conditioned, includes four access points. The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has been provided. In addition, on-site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles. 15. f.: No Impact: The proposed project requires a total of 663 parking spaces. A total of 1,278 parking spaces are provided. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Ternecula Regional Hospila~lnilial Study DRAFT-Hospilai-1.doc 34 15. g.: No Impact: The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) has submitted a letter requesting a bus stop facility. The applicant shall comply with the standards and written request as set forth by the RT A No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. . . . R:\C U P\2004\04-o463 T emecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT -Hospital-1.doc 35 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. b. c. d. e. f. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the a Iicable Re ional Water Quali Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ex anded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and re ulations related to solid waste? x x x x x x x Comments: 16. a. b. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. The Applicant is required to consult with the sewer purveyor, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to determine what, if any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit a letter from EMWD indicating that current facilities are in place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to provide service to the proposed project. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because the wastewater and treatment systems are already designed to handle this quantity of wastewater. 16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The project may require various Stale and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the project site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities are required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control RCWD has reviewed the proposed plan and have not submitted any formal comments of concern in regards to District Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. .. d.: No Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water titlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho Califomia Water District (RCWD) has provided "water R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnilial Study ORAFT-Hospital-1.doc 36 available" letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed project, provided the applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. There is a water well near that project site, owned by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). RCWD have been notified of the project; RCWD has no~ notified the City of any significant issues or concerns for the proposed project. The proposed project is als9 consislent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regard to permitted uses and policies. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. f. g.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT -Hospital-1.doc 37 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: a. b. c. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histo or rehisto . Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current ro'ects, and the effects of robable future ro'ects? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directl or indirectl ? x x Comments: .7. a.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project will not degrade the quality of e environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The developer will be required to obtain all applicable State and Federal Permits including, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers and clearance from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A traffic analysis has been completed and was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify and require traffic calming devices and mitigation measures to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan. 17. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The individual effects from the project are primarily less than significant with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The air quality impacts have been identified as potentially significant impacts. As discussed in the Air Quality section, the project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is designated "extreme" non- attainment area for ozone. The City Council of the City of Temecula has adopted Resolution 93-90, which includes a statement of overriding consideration for air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. Resolution 93-90 identifies these areas that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the build-out of the General Plan. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the miligation measures in place, the project will be consistent with Ihe standards required by the General Plan and Development Code, and accordingly the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17. c.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures are required in order to reduce impact to a less than significant level. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\lnifial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 38 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'ect. Earlier Analysis: The proposed project was reviewed under the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan adopted by City Council on November 9, 1993. Sections 3.0,4.1,4.2,4.4,4.5,4.6, 4.7,4.10,4.11,4.12,4.14,4.17, and 6.0 of the Final EIR for the General Plan, together with the identified technical documents prepared by the Applicant, were relied upon to analyze the proposed project. As a result of the above mentioned sections and technical sludies, the conclusion found within this initial study were made. The information relied upon as described above is available at the City of Temecula for review and inspection. . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Ternecula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 39 .. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. .2. 13. 14. 15. 16. . SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, November 4, 2004 Trip Generation for Spring Valley Hospital, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., November 15, 2004 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment, AMEC, Inc., September 14, 2004 Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Temecula Hospital, PSI Inc., May 14, 2004. Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center, Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC Company), November 2004. Paleontological Resource Assessment Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech., September 16, 2004. Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004. Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 20,1996. Letter to the Honorable Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson, Riverside County Board of Supervisors from John W. Eldridge, Jr. Acting Director of Mitigation Division of Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX, dated January 25, 1996 Inundation Study for Vail Dam, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc., July 1975. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, Regulation Compliance Incorporated, Inc., December 16,2004 City of Temecula Resolution 93-90, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan for the City of T emecula, Adopted November 5, 1993 R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnilial Study DRAFT-Hospilal-1.doc 40 . DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM . . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc 41 . . .... ,... 1.1) E 9 III 1.1) ... 0 Cl <( O_D.. a:S-c .- c: ClQ.lll c: III .;:: 0 ('I) oJ:(l) ;!::lll'<:l' c:-o o ::s · "",u'<:l' -==(1)0 c:E<( O(l)D.. +n....N" III (l) .2> '<:I' ~ C? :E '<:I' o <( D.. . ~ o tn..! :I", ....- :l~ (1),5 ~ '" a.. Gl :E .tij c o Q. t/l Gl 0::: "0 l/l C - '" 5j g>o>E .- C 1:: c.- ro ~ ~ a. _:J<I> o..lIlO "0 l/l C - 00 5j g>o>E .- C 1:: c: .- co ffi;g 0.. _:J<I> o..lIlO "0 l/l C - 00 5j g>o>E -- C 1:: c-- ro c"O 00 = 0. _:J<I> o..lIlO ..2! :I "C Gl ..c: l.l II) C o :;::; 00 ... C Gl E Gl Q. E .... o "0<1> C u 00 C l/l 00 C :J m~::: 0.-- E .2.9 ffi ~,-a. <I> 0 E'c g> o 0.._ _c"O ~ ro":; 0. o..n ::: mw E.!; ~ .n.:cQ) :Jo> U)==~ ~-E 0 LLoooO w"'O"U--a.. c:c:coJ: ..52 co .Bot: en 0. l/l l/l 0.0 o c 0> (J) oc::..52cQ).8 (j) uEE UJ E 0> 0>= C Ol::==oro .- m- --Q)'+-a. o..c:_ ..!:O)m""OO> a.==--mc en Co-- :::'U,,-=t E 00 0 <1>'- .n o..-.J::. E :="'0 .c I'~ Q) cO:=' V~ ..c CO '+- en C 00 0._ _O>~ c.5 t;::: ~:CQ) a. C)~ u'- -.... 'C -0 0 (j)cQ) EOOu_ o C al'E --ro::s,,- oa.wQ) ~_u>o. - ro'- :::oog' E"r:: +-'.- .000-0 :J ~ 'C "S (/) <I> o..n >, "0 :J - (/) lii :;::: 'c >, "0 :J U5 00 :;::: 'c >, "0 :J U5 lii :;::: -c "0 l/l C - 00 5j g>o>E .- C 1:: 2 u ro CO = a. _:J<I> o..lIlO o - ~ C 0 0'- ._ ~ en - ~c (.) (/)"- :J_"O L.."- - ..... co'- l/l _ :J c()).n 0"0_ ~ 3:.~ 00.... >, "0 <I> a..5 -S 0:;:..... U..c: 0 co:!::::: Q) :!: ~ g +-00 E l/l 00'- .nc:JE :JroooQ) CI) o..~ >, "0 :J - (/) lii :;::: 'c ~ ~ ..... g> Q) oaf "--00)= c '-c ..ceO) m-.cm Q) Q)~o"'" ~~E ~ E.~.J::. E ~m~m o..!: -~ o..c = (/) 0.":::J a. ro 0> '+- 0)= C 0 -t/lOO 0-0" -c c=OO :;:::0_ m..cO) -cuQ)c::S.- m-..!: I....l:i=ro ~~U).~ Q),,-,,-'-e~ _~(J) 0.- _ 0>- > Gl.c: l/l._ 0> a. +-' :;:. -g ......()) ---:;..c IDcU())o.- Q) ..... c..... co>O <I> - 0>"'0 C 0> eN+-, :J<I>:;:::= ->c C<l>OOc 00 O.c..!:Q) m~iQ).~~ ~-.Q~~ ~~E :2: = .2> > :J '-0 cnl::; co ..eo>"O o..c:o> <I> ()) <I> <I> <0-'- o<l>,+-chcUl<l>V) co.'- > b..c-~ -0-- Q) =m<==~ N>._ C(1)-o,,- E~,,-E'U.c mQ)Q)E'~ ~ou ~0>~8 Q).5~.~~E :!:::::~..c:J~ ~~~ O'!;'-O<l> l-<I>cE -<I> E1i)I-E"O liil/l<l> -,::t:. ......~ro Wo> ..n .-00 -0>'- ID~~.~ o.~~~roc ~~~.~ wc~ ~=o.E~ >,:J E<I>- l/lc"OE= ~~o W ~ ..n 0>._ ~"U" co co a> ..., C ~<("O~~ O~cx-=l/l = o.()) =- <I> C"Oo C~coo>~ID ro~~~~ co"Sa> .~ .rooo a>O>~Ec..n.~ ~.-a>-~ ~..n..n ~~cw" ~'-rn .- ro U)~~"U~ ~ ~ -~~"U"U~~ -crn~Q)w -coooo ~ID~~~ ~O-crococ com ~IDO~ - rorooE~ ~o-oc ~c~ :;:u"Ol/l.n '~"O'13 ,.-0 ---l/lX()) __0 ~c"O~~ ~cm~wa..n ~ro~mE ~w~ -(t)WL...o -(t)E-'~ -0 c.."Ocoow 0.3-0 C.C+-'o.l o.Q) E,-wQ) <(co"Oc.= 4:0"0 ~E~~I"5N"E-oE'ccoro. ooQ)o.c ~ooQ)"Oc I o~'-~.c:looO.__Q)OM~~ro- ~ C <(OO~Ol/l<(OOOEo~~~I-!1i)E~~~~~ " o "0 ti:~ i:: o E l'! co e Q. co c: 'C .9 "c ~ c .Q 1ii g ~ 2 "0. '" o I <ii c o '0. & '" "3 i6 E Q) ?- M '" '" o ..j. 9 '" o o <::l Q. ::J Y ii. ea ... ea C tnJ!! ::lea ... .- <<J~ "'r:: U)_ ~ ea 0.. Gl ;e Ul r:: o Co Ul Gl 0::: - r:: Ol E 1:: ro a. Ol o 0> r:: 'c I:: ro a.. 0_ =c: .aOl OlE 0..1:: ...:ro 1::0. Ol Ol O>EO .1: 1:: '" I::ro-" I::o.~ roOlo 0..0$ .5! ::I 'C Ol ..r:: o U) r:: o :;::; ltl ... r:: Gl E Ol a.. E _ 0> OlI::I:: U) (0'- ___u oo.ro ~Q)O> o.o.ro "O~\f- I::UlO rouOl .<:1::0 o>rol:: Ol~ro o ~ ol ~ I:: Ul co co.~ - 0> 0 .-.- ...... E ~ -.- ......:.a '- E .......COOL. :J '- 'C Q) U) 0> a. a. c:~ o.~ .- 0 o~ ol a. ~ Ol w..r:: 1::- 0..... o 0 -Ol -..... ro= O>Ol 1::'<: 'C ...... olU UI:: o>ro I:: '" .- Ol o Ul O>ro I::..r:: 00. Gl ~ ::I o U) :>, U ol U5 <ll :;:: 'c - I:: Ol E '" 1::-c ro 0 as-$ _ 001:: -- Ol 0>- E I::.a -_ ol 1:: I:: a.. ro I::uo. .!Qc:Q) a.. roO - I:: Ol E 1:: <ll a. Ol o 0> I:: 'c I:: <ll a.. :>, '-.~=.! g a>..c ro= co -gl-e>Q) a. ~c:a~c:-E" :J ~U2'~"O g Ol -I::ul:: 0,>- -5 ~U) ~ >. co ~ :f:::" 00 -Ul 0= oO~8:m Q)o m;2Q)<<Jro -~ ~~..5=..c ~'m ..... '-roa..r.;:::~ <ll EU..<: 1::0 t'o. iilOl'O"'oOl OlUl (J) c..C c:+:;"O'O 0 .- moo,- :r: o C>>L...+:J:J a. 0 .......!;a>m.,b -<I) '-""C......O>(/) 0> L.-C 0- 1::._ c:-'= 0- 'c 'S CD ~ 0:: 'C '- a...aOE 0 00...8 >- '0 ol U5 (ij :;:: 'c ~ ::I '" ltl Gl ~ r:: o :;::; ltl Cl :;::; ~ LOO Q) 0.~ ~ Ul 0 .a .0 a. Q) co2 ..c E.<:Q)=- (/)-5 roo '0.....- c:-go-gt) ro co: '- ro Q) E Q) .~.... -....(1)..00 '-Q;;<1>-:J_ Q)......E.U)cnu ..0 (0..-_ ~Q) roo>(j)ow.= _ S, 0..~.!!1 0 ttli'-Q)et 1i) O.c a. ~.5 1::.<:- 01:: '-OC:Q)L..C ro.5o-5a.ro ..c...t I::" c"'C a.. (J)C\lQ)Q)IDm --to Q) C..c ffi~~~2= .20)0>.0000 8:~o"'O~ro <(I:: I:: I:: Q) 1) Q)oco"'tJL.. ..oQ)~=Q)'- I.cOCO......~ <( I- U) 0)'00 L.. ->:-0 Q)..c"""""O cc-oc t)~~c: ::J <ll <ll :;: -iij ro :5 U5 J 3: 6: g>.Q 'j!: _>. E ro E Q) "0 0~::J :'=0) CU;:J.b ~o 'm~(/)U) -- c: ...........cc .<::'0 ro I:: I:: Q) 0 a.._ "m co (.) E~a. EUlOo> o'-E Q)-I:: <.> <( 0 >.E (J)'C Q) (). Q; "ue -5 =:5c~ a.ro+-'(/J ro 00 o-c..... .c,....+:;N '-"'000 W.: co ~ Q.c: 0-0 :;<0 coco rn C>~ ro (/) 0 "'0 ......c(1)'- -5j~.u;2Q) @.QD::1l _iil"'<llUl .2 10 >. E C 0 "E ~ :J a.u.nQ) ~uQ)Q)c a.c (,) C Q) roQ)uQ) 'c..Q)2~:J E ~ 0 Q."T"'l ro...... 0- E'"...... CO......+-'uQ) ~u..... Q)C/)Q)C/) oc..2NQ)(U '--'.0 of!:!co 1..c:-a>e:J ~c.."OCJI-~.sc..U) >. u ::J U5 (ij :;:: -c ~,= a> co Q) 00 Q) 0 2cu+-'_.!::J"O+-' "'.<: ro 0+-'0.- 00 +-' C/) .!: ro UlQ) ~"OL...+-, ,. ~Q)- >00 ~uroco>ro.....: Q)~I::~ N.- Q) I:: ~1i) I:: co a. co 0:: I Q) oro::Jiil2'<:Ol-E u:;:0",..r::'O..r::21:: L..._o._ Q)+-'I::m <llNro~OOl> Q) ~:;:'-.<:oEEOl (tJ Q).- L... 0 .!: I:: 3: L...+-' Q.L... cO 6ID .QI....a.-o .- 0la>Q:..E cu 1::'= c: .0 0 ~ >._ '01::' 1::-"'1::1:: - I:: ro '" :>, <ll o.w I:: OOm:.=cu ro ~ 0.01::........_- ."'Ol .-ro--I::oa.. ~-Emo.EOl OlcnO-~~E-ro ....m :J-'....... c- ro,.oo>o::JOlQ)::J E"I::OlOUlO>E~ Q).- ~ 0 - ro 1:: E (flU - -c ::J '-"0 co - co m m Q) o i:: Q) ~ 0.<: E 0.1- "00)"00> rJ) Q) L...C/)L..."OQ)+-, 00 CO_~~(Uc(() N co or.. l.... U m m >'+-, co U w .- U'i:: __ .- .<:--:0 O~= Q) 1::0 .. "0 - t 0.-- :::::I '7= Q) Q) -g Q) a. co 0 Q) oo<(E.aroO<(EO,s . ~N. !;: ~ o E l'! co e Q. co <= '<= B 'c o :2 <= .2 16 g ~ ]j 'Q. '" o J: Cii <= o -", " ex: '" '5 ~ E .. ?- M '" .,. o ... o " o o s:< Q. ~ 9 it. . . . . ~ c Ch.!! :l III .... .- CO:: ....C 1Il_ ~ III 0.. III :0 'ii) c o Q, Ul III 0:: - c <Il E t:: ro 0. <Il o 0> .5 c c ro a. - c <Il E t:: ro 0. <Il o 0> .5 c c ro a. ..!!! :l "C III ..c o III C o ~ .... C III E III C. E <Il _..c ",- ....... <;::0 <Il<ll ..c:~ -- ....<Il O..c <Il- 0'0 cC roro :J_ ",.- '" E ';U Q5 ..ca. -0> .9.~ "0 "''0 <Il o-'~ '-"50 0: CO a. c _ 0> "'.- .: (f) cD ....-..c <Ilro- ..cco _0_ ot5"O <Il<ll_ Q) .!::: :t:: c: g'O'E <Il roro.oE :J -:J t:: U)~tJ)ro "'E c. .-....O>Q) <Il<ll.oO ..c: 0.= - roO> o OJ..c c: --.f:; CIJ'c .Q ~ ai ~ ....::J__ a..o 0. a. <Il o ... :l o III >. "0 :J ii5 <ii :e c >.~ 'O<Il Bc (f)<Il -C> '!!!'O c ~cro Sroa. '" -'" ... o 5: 0> '" Oc- '-.- c: :CC<ll :J C E a...!!!t:: - a. ro <( '0 0. I-c<ll 0:: roO Ec '5 eo roQ) 0)...... +=- ..c (.) cern-we: --oc:ctJrnro "C,-,-cQ)::J ~ro"Eu:::O(/) o 0 .- U) 0><;:: 0 . ~.- ........coc.Q)Q 00) ..8(1)::: G>>O)U)_o o Q)'~ ~ 0 ._ ...... ffi"'CJ3:5ca.'~ ::J'5~c:.Q"Ot: (f)of/J'-roQ)Q) .5a 5.<( .3 c:2 a. D ~ 00"->0) --:t::~::JEe.~ DE .o<llo.'O "i:: CD cD '-CD Q)"S a.. a.-:5.Eu.a..a c ro a: ~ <Il C <Il C> 0'" .-- -c .o<ll tiE 'Ot:: c ro roo. <Il g>O .- '" c-'" c ... ro 0 a. 5: "" Eo>'" O).o.~ CO .~...... c:J?;o> :50 .- U) 0 C .... .- c 'O=..c'Q. 0;:0 ~ro(l)ro c::c+:; O)~ c ~ ~ ~ .2 ~ co: +-' ~ ""0 L. Q) 1:5 ......ca.c~L..::JE Oeo rooco....o Q).5:?~:: Q."- (;) 0 u:i o a. ro c E.E c <Il .91 ca.ocoo>O)o..c::t::::: mcow...........co+-'> :::::J "'OQ) ._"--;; U) Q) c '0 ~"O 0 0 0 .5Q..c: co..... CD Q)...... fJ) m --- <Il'O>'_ ..9......i(ij..c:wU)Q)co,== ....E- c 0')(00 c:"U.- o L..'- ::::J=-c co"'C k Q) LL e ~ >..!2 0 ~ 1.1.. a. m "'0 ;>..c: c..,.... v c ro a. ro ... <Il C <Il C> "'OQ)U)Q)Q. -cnIDQ ..... Q)..cCO"-:J Q)>CO- c: C I C u)-Q):Jt coO) co c. co_c .- o L.. t5 ~ '- .- - (.) tJ) "5.-C co () c (j) ~..8m:J.Q _wti2 .~ g c cD~5 cDO~ c a>.,ba. 0: m..... o........co- COco 0.0 ..c:+::;\J cD_U)(f)rn roo:J <.~u~ a.-:J m....~.~-m...... o2'Oc :5cO::~ <IlcQo, Co o'Ooo>~~o ~Q)Q)ID'C caO ~ro_ccrnID ooIDEco~- _mE-~~ ~~o _~m~w'-E ~> ._._.~c :J"-o"" o-~ ~~c:J-_fIJ c.-......-o-o>.:J m .-~ ~IDO~ ~ .-_.-IDm ro--ro ~-O afIJ~o_ m~~~c '-E~"""~~~~ =~~~_2~E E oc~ 2~m 0 ~.~roo>.,.,.. ro W m O~UID~ 0 O~~ w~~-.~~ ~~~EW~&m oe~cx roo-I~ ~ID~m2>~ ~~-._oE~c m (5 ~ a: ID .5 2 -a S2 g>~ ~ ~ ~ [5 ~ ~ !!? -:; ~ 2 -:; .~ D-orn.-flJ~ ~"Um._'~ ~<Il~<Ilu<llo.<Il 'E-0c.2~OIDOO ~c~mro >~IDIc ~ - ro ~ro-o~~~ <Il'-'-E> Po~ - '-~~rn.~ ~ DOEEc':J-'O<Il ro c~ 0 - fIJ \U ~_mroo--~ ~ .r. > c ;>.- ~.5 ""C ..::::. ..Q () - ~ co 0 c rn g ~ o'c O'"!!? ""C f/Joro-o-E = OCID -~ rnnc_ID _.-c~cIDOC o - <1> = Q) m _:= m > 0 'S: -0 - Q) '+= ""0 E - 0 .- ~ CIJ rn ~cm~ .r.",D ~ <Il;>co.r.""CQ) mm._rnO~-_ m .- Q) mmm-c-t .r.~~mmmorn <Ilromm~_ rnc~ ~ro cO--""~-~Cl"" cnrn_cn.DEc:J .r.- .- _CO~"UC -'~~o-E\U -Q)n .- ~ <Il - .5.,., cr c 'C co ~ co C'U <( _>..... C.o <Il -c 0 "'C n ""C - ~- o<ll I- <Ilrnmcmm_ "'0...... mID'+- m en Q) _ ~ ~ .- <1> 0 0 m ....... Q) <I) m :J 0 c ID~oE~o .QID.r.~ro rnE~~-=~Q ge>"'<Ilo",<Il fIJ~- ID>~ n""C- <Il .~o-co.~m ~~- <Il"O> ~c~IDO~ nIDEro- oo~ ~.~IDc ~~~~~Ec~ -<Il-o..ou con -0 _uoco"'o.o_~ m~-",-~<Ilro= ~ ~_ fIJ oOE ~_cm~ ~ ~~ u ~ ""O~m""CID~m ~t 0.QmID.~n.r.mc~ID-'-oE~""O""O I = C a..r. eEl .r. ~ - 0 e I ~..c Q) (]) n"'5.r. m I .r. "- fIJ 0 0 c c m~comfIJm~m~~g~am~fIJ~""OmrofIJ~m~$~_o~com CD ... :l Ul ro III ::1E c o i Cl :;:; ~ o o """" \i: ~ o E e '" e a. '" .2 S '2 o :2' <= o '" .. '" '" :;; l' '5. (/) o :J: iij <= o '0. .. lr .. "5 o .. E .. ?- M '" .,. o .. o 'it o o ~ a. ::> 9 Ii' III 1ii c cn.!!l ::l III .... .- ftJ~ ....r:: 1/)_ ~ III D- III :c "iij r:: o Q. III III c::: - C III E t:: ro 0. <D Cl OJ C 'c c ro 0.. - c <D E t:: ro Q. <D Cl OJ C "c c ro a: oS! ::l "0 Gl .t: U I/) r:: o +:: III .... C III E Gl is. E OJ , C.r, roBe u U _'- 0 co J:O ~ 0 0 o>-o"Oc:t:: -......... cO) a. O>L..(f)Q)o-:t::coC/J co 0 C""'O'- 0 'I-::t:..(tJ ~'S E ~~ 0=== c..q::.n..a co Q) <D E Olt.t: iil.t:o..t: O'-C::(J)O -- ca>,-ococucQ ro 0.;E <D.o 0 :JC)Eco,-=+:oc ~.~.n"'Oc.E ~ Qg .- "'O:J --.... Q)==CJ)co>.(/)~~ .c.:J _Q 0 C C Q) -.o~ocro 0. 0_0l ro0.80. -.~ca..a. ~ L.. E:.o:r: =' ~.c ~:t::: .g a;"SC/) 80 ~.o'o 0.. 0..00 01- <D Ol~ Ol .5 '5 co "Om '-- ~Q)o'oO>Q) OJ '- -lh Q).5 D o "'''''C- ct:J~ C co==(tiu 0> m..c: 'I-';:::~~:J..c:c.5 '-0 0.-0.._.0 0(0 c oeo ~EOla;.t:E3:C ~~ C:Q).50~CO(])~ c.E co Q.!:: <<J Q) 0,"5 co__ ~C>>E"'CL.O~Q) ~::: cn.5.oc..Ea.,--E cnE Ow ~ ~ 03_ ';: 0> ~ >. 'E:o; Q) .t:::l .CloC'U.oQ)..cO- -.0- C"L::Q)-E- ~ o - 010 ro ro:t:: ro 0 Ol Ol .... ~ .5 a.. a...c: -- ~ t --.5.5 L..E"'O:C:JcnEL..~L..'U"'O Q ....==cn 0 Q).c a.~ 0._:= OL-Q):J O"'C:Ja.......L::J:J 0.. 0..0 0 0';:: lh ro Cl 0.. c:o .0 Gl l:! ::l o en c ro a: ~ Ql C <D Cl c ro a: m '- Ql C <D Cl Gl .... ::l Ul III Gl == r:: o +:: III OJ +:: ~ 0).... :3: >. L.. ~ "0 Q) .5~Q)'O~ ~_ ~ ~ ffiQ) -E u-b-c- ro~ .... 'Ct: .c.C 'I- "Sc 0)0 L.."::O) -:J0)0--0 0 OCt :JOe "00>"'0=-0+:0 c .o~oo o~'c 2.5 .c-c-o 0 "Ocrou~o-o.o.""o O~::l .-_lh:><D'-::l"_ c_"'O>'~Eoo~>~.Qbro~ -~_2::llh Q) c .- ..:::: = :J. L.. en 'I- L.. W _ (])lh~Cl(])o.-o~Eo.co(]) Ol(])lh lh "OEQ. ~.ocQ)~.o,-oQ)a. c>cQ)Q) cQ)Ea> ._~.c.~:JSuoo ---0.0> co ~bo oro(/)o'-cQ) ~~o_~ m~m =c~w~~mom~ ~.om=c -- co: <.> 0)-- c: x ...... L.... '+- -. __ ~ 3: Q) roc:--c:<'>-ro Q)----- - -~~ <.> O'-ro~.-m~ 2~=O-E-lh'-0l\l l\l_w~uc'c_ oo::::::mL...~.DL...'+-""'(tJ (/)'+-..... _ a.~ > ::J co m L... ~.r:::. CD L... .- .:=\ '+- CO:.Q co O"U 0> "C ::: Q) <'>.52 0 en.5 ~~ G' en o.r:::. UCClhQ.~Ol~cEc -co (])UlE-Oro _~roTIrocn~_~c_Q cO>oro.r:::. o-C~(])OlS _E~=OOo>ro--~ro_~_~"U c - ~mum~_5ro(/)~tD~U~~C ro~g~ ~O~~W=~~IDeID~'~Uro ~--~~~ wc~~~rooo~~~o>~O(/) ~n~oB "E .Q E c '0 -5i g ~ 0>{5 ;. co "U '0 ~ .~ g. g> ~ ~ 2 ~~wocnwID~_5~~o~ ~ ~m'C _c =tm~cID--~ocnu 20 -~rocCID ~o~<.>o~o> o>,+-m~~ro- o-~ID8E ~~-g2~_g.5~to>c._g~ _~WID m rowc~~c~--o_ero~>E._ ~-E-~n u ~mc~cm~o~ o~~.-tU~o~_~cn ~ I .c: ~ u 0 a. U = ~ (D e ~ W t5 ID m I -c Q) '- co ID 1::J oo~~2uo2Eo~~ro_~coUEm~a.ro.c:5~ . - <:: (]) E t:: ro 0. (]) Cl OJ C ~ ::l c:o c ro 0.. ~ Ql t: (]) Cl ~'<t. ~ o E l" ~ o ~ 11. ~ " .., .9 "2 o :;: ., o 1ii g ~ '" J!! 'Q. '" o I n; " o .'" " a:: ro "5 al E " .... '" '" ..- o ~ o " o o ~. 9 ii >.....; "'d'" UUN C <D (])._<D -_ 0 +::; <.> '--- .- 0.1- ll::.._ (]) ~ lh >.-E 2 2>orn (Dc; c__ ~ (])'<t- GlN.r:: - - ~ 2-:: 0'- 0.1- >. '-~o. 0.0 E () 0 .5 -c u -(]) -c= CO:._ co: ~'Q)~ lh -0 (I) - - C(I)C rororo U U' -- en __ en a."E a."E ~co a. ('0 ..couco-c Dmcmc ~..cctJ..cro co~U5~U5 . . . ns 10 c (;).!! ::lns .... .- co:: ....C 1/)- ~ ns Il.. Gl :E 'iij C o Co VI Gl It: - - c: C (J) (J) E E I/) t tel: <1l <1l 0 a. 5rs: _ (J) Cl Cloc .- (J) 0) 0)- E c: c.a ._ :J t 'i: c: c.. <1l c: c: -0 a. <1l .!!lc:(J) c.. c..<1lCl 0) 0) c: e '0 '0 <1l ~ ~ 0) 0) <1l <1l - '0 0 (J) (J) 0 o;'!: c: C:E <1l <1l~ :J :J(J) I/) 1/)0. .!!1 .!!1 0) (J) (J) e .c: .c: .- - _-0 B=: 0= _:J ~ E ~.a 0 ~ .Q -0 'C (J) ~ e c.. a. c..<1l e e <1l <1l c.. 0: ~ ~ (J) (J) e e (J) (J) <.9 <.9 ..9! ::l "'0 Gl .c o I/) c o :0:: <1l .... C Gl E Gl ii. E Gl U ~ ::l o I/) Gl ~ ::l VI <1l Gl ::iE c o :0:: <1l Ol E ::iE 5 , ,... >.0> "0 en g!"O"'C c~"'C"Ot) >'0 \U.... +-'C cQ).......ccoQ):;<1> o.Eo "o-._-w ro~-roro.-wo~c a.1/)+-- .- :!:::;:s,...>Q) Q)C>row <J)ro:::Sc :!:.~OC>"O -O"B a.5C>c ~o"'Cro E--c"O"O<1>f/)-~ m~~ro -~E~ ~~-'5Q)roD-<1>ID O"'C~~.~~~Q)~ ~ C)oc -is W<1>--~oro>~ CcE2CroE~>- -0 > I/) (J)---(J)<( 0- -0) c: .- Q) L.. c+-'o .':>.. "- 0):,;::0 ~ ..c ..c a. c "- ro~Q)O~:::sL-a.Q) CO~t ow._"CQ) =c~Ero~~"'C..c u2>ro~~f/)fr~c co ~"-f/)OC- co- <1><1>00><1>"-<1> .E.~~::~5 Q.E rom o,~'~- a."w 0 ~- --xEo --0 0 roe~~~o~ ro~roEO._~2~<1> roo~_a.EQ)._o~ ==0 n+-'o"'C~ _="cro a>>Uuc> E e-u..c ~ OJ ~ _ :::s 0 co Q):5 Q) 'U 2 Q) :c DocO~c'5o"O _> "-<1>0)+-'>' :::sorocE'~~-c <1>00 ~roo_f/)O"'C We "7 -~co =c ::;:sQ>Ca.c' ='-CIDo.5~:::So ~croQ) -o:::SOa>(OO> roQ).Q~_"-C>~O(J) :JO.c:I/)E~Q)~O"O D -- (J)~E ~ -"-C: W"- ..c-co"'Cw co D Woo to) co .Ut....W f/)f/)-cmDEctJo ~,,-_roEoQ)~CO~ co~mU)""O Q)+-'Q) ::JcQ.a..+-'u..orooo. roQ)Q)xa.C~..cCf/) Q)"OroQ)._ ~ co o'~>o~ro:::s-oc ..cQ)~O~"'CQ)roi-~ ="-_DQ)Q)OQ)'U)~ -..clirnIDID>ID-cn nnc~~~IDUoH o-nc ~~~Uoro nIDrou~-E~~~ -rn~'- roromID.-c ~:~~.~~~~i~ID~~'~ ~&~~~~.~~ ~~~w~o ~c-~.c~IDro~ro_~(J)E<1l m~Q~NE8oBro~m~~E~roEm~nID~ - e (J) E I/) tel: <1l 0 5rs: _ Clue .- (J) O).a E .5 :J t e c.. <1l e -0 a. <1l e (J) c..l1lCl 0) _ .~ 0 -0 I/)(J) ~ Q) 8.~ O).c: >--0- ro - +.,.' c: 0 - <1l (J) <1l O;t:::ID~ Q) E-o_-ou Q) '-.- CD Q) .!!! o(J)o>cwn c:n~._:J ~ o>o.ro a> 13 U).~=.g.o ro w~ro""OoQ) ._==~C:_L... Q):Jw:;:::_o_ ~..c_cc~c ->,CQ)IDQ)Q) ~ ~.~ ~.[~.[ .2 ""0 0. ~ ::s -(J) g:J ,-c:0.~CJ" a..ro~wQ).aQ) e <1l c.. ~ (J) e (J) <.9 -o(J) (J) ~(J) N .- .c: :;:;~ :J (J) l/) .a(J) ""O"~ -0) :Je ~(J) I/) c~ (J)~ ~~ 'S 8- CT , (J)(J) e ""0:.= (J)O ~I/) (J) <1l ~O) o 0._ <1l 0 . o (J) ..'C :J..c (f) 13.~"Ci) ~Q)lro to W .5 .2 u o '!tr) t ~ o E e 0> e 0- 0> C 'C .9 'c o ::E c .Q 1ij 0> "' ~ ~ '(i '" o :r: ro c o -a, " '" ro 'S u " E " f- '" co ... o '" o '" o o N a: :::> y ii. Gl .. ::J f/I I'll Gl :E I: o :;:; I'll CD :;:; ::;E I'll 'la o liif/l ::J'jij -.- n:J;t= -I: If)_ . ~ I'll 0.. Gl :c 'iij I: o Co f/I Gl It: o =1: .a (I) ~E "Ot:: C 01 010. (I) go '- '" C~ C .. ~~ Q) :; "tl Q) .c () lf) C o :;:; I'll - C Q) E Q) ii E gOl :0 ~~ ~ E Q) OlGl.a CO 0.= 'U '+-O)mc: OC.cCO <D'O"'3 o:=cQ) c: ::J CO._ m.o-> ::J a. (I) (/) >,. c s... (/) c: :> ..... '-01;>0 Q) "0 0 ~ .I::; "0"0 """cO)Q)- OOlC:s::Ol ............._ 0- > .- .. E 0 '-Ea> '- .2""'10.0 a. D....<D>::Ja. a.;> f/I 01 o o t'" ~ o E I" o e a. o ~ .~ .9 '2 o ::;: ~ .Q 1ii 0> '" ~ ]j 'Q. '" o I 15 ~ o '0. <1> a: .. '5 o <1> E <1> ?- M CO '" o .;. ~ o o S! D. :::> y Ii . . Gl l:! ::J o lf) >'e! "O<D 2c U)<D -(!) .~ "T'l l:: -~Ol eC- OID.. (I)+-' cD C en CD C)O)Q) ~"O- 1])= Q) .c c '---'-.0 C C 0('1") C (J).r:.. m..o--= ..... Q) O"P""l Ol ._.-::lo.... 0)....... Q) >'+->J _"Os... -~v..o C -<DQ)cc-....:J"O..... .cc= en ..........-m--......Q) ......_c Q) L....., w"U..co"'" L.. Q) cnu.- 0 \U 0 tJ)c.C>(J)~(J)c_o"3~2~ ~tJ) 01 C .- ""'::Ja. ~.,.. ,..oc'-O)<D.....C.....LLrv <1)..... Q) ..............-0) 0:> LLQ)_Q) C. EQ)'-~ o:>cn-c 00"0"'00. c-o.....ocnc: <D- oc--c-- C> ~ -. -""C .- .- 0 > co C c3Ec"Oo",~~3~0l~0 G --0 OC(I)<D<D.2:>. >. a", "O"O<D-Ol-E-U-O~~ c>. ~ "0 :5 g c: e;; ~ co ~<( 1;,) _UJ CD co .n O>Q)c......QQ.C"') O()::lQ...cQ.Ol = CD'- en () CD c 0) ~ 0 C/) -g :2: .~ co +-' ~ C :::J..c: ro: c.- _ .- m = c: 0 ~eo"l- '-"0-(1) ~~O ""O~o ..... .ccmco (/J W;:O~ C :> 0- () CIJ . +-' Q) L...c:5 m U) ..c () c co wQ)c>.U>>O>(J) <D(J)::lO Q)o"-OCO(l)Q) -0 '-E c:..aQ>.Eu"OQ) o"EEQ5:';::cti o <D -~_ D>Ooco '--..,... CD<DO....._COs...::>_ .- --......00 c:.....O'+- ~+::O",o orne: c..c:ccoc:.= U)a.rooo 2 i5 CtJ 0 0 +-' c: co c.1i) co E "i: --- '-3:0> a. c:s..."OQ) ~ 2 ~ -g ~Q o.~ 5 co c5 ~ t1>.E c a. OO.M~ ClJ--c Q)'U C~ Q) 0 E c ClJ 0 ...~ ..... ....."'0 L.. O..c ;:; t1> -- +-' o>.....t1>C)~t1>Q)O:J.--~ClJo> 0>1:) ..cO.~.~t1>nL..E~ .~:Jrot1>~t1> ~._tU+-,~ EtU W--Ol-OlC>~.~ L.. ---,.- ..... _ c U) 0 ..... .n ~:JEO>~t1>orotUo:J:JtUro.n~:J CO 0 n.2 0>-5 0 3: f; 0"'0 I.L n:: E ro 0> w . . . . S III o en..! :l III .. .- ca::: en': ~ III 0- Gl :is 'w c o Q. II> Gl 0::: - c Q) Ell> t~ '" 0 lil-:s:_ o.~ lii Ol- E <:.0 ._ :l t co.. '" c"'O e. '" c Q) 0..",0 Gl :i "'0 Gl .c u l/l c o E c Gl E Gl C. E Ol <: 'g", ... Q) Ol> '" '" Q) .....<::- o-.!!! - ... Q)"'e. u'<::o C en ... "'ene. ::l<:e. en",'" .~ a. (]) G>Q)..c:c ..c:,-+-'o _......c:.- 0-:':::16 -""~E ..... E Q) l.... 0....._0 "i::Q>o'E o..e.<:._ u o "t!,.-. Ii: ti o E l!! 0) e 0- 0) C 'C B '2 o ::; c o '" '" ~ ::;: ~ .l!l 'Q. '" o I m c o '0. " 0: '" "3 u " E " f- '" "' .,. o .t o '" o o Sl 0. ::l 9 it. Gl U ... :l o l/l >-~ "'OQ) ~<: l/lQ) -<9 .m"O c: :!::::c:co E",o.. l!! :l II> III Q) :iE c o :;:: I'll Ol :2 :iE Q) u - ..... ~_.-'o (/) ene 0_ =ca"8(f)comc Q):t::: co ==cm..c:'C<1>CC ~ (j)5ai~ "'oo.<::enQ)....oQ)>- e.EES (/):+::;tI)_c.ca+=,~ca 'u ul"O g II> <:Q) 0 II> 0 0"0 . Qj E="".~ (])(])l....~E_~ro(f).....rn>omoc. ;;w....co =o.ro<DcQ)u..c:- '>o~;:-"OmE a.'ccQ)(/)Q)..9- +' 0.0"'0 co2'E 0 Q) tI) Q) Q)"o- E....... ~ ~ 0 ~ 2?'E Q) <? 5 a>ro..c:.2 ~+:i~ Ol _Q)...f-=E="'OE~~()<:E_ c .~:5 Q) t5 Q) 5 e Q) +:i o>"O.E g 0 >- Ul....~:t:::~~.....l....D~cQ)=l.........n co.2 0 <?"O >-"S;: ..e = c 'cQ)- ~ ~ ~ '; C L...ctli(f.)C :=C-oroCO ....Q) O'>EcoQ)L..Q>c..c:..c:>a>CJ)>.w = 0 ""C .2:: ~....... co CI) ...... Q).c C):t::: E E m-ot Q}:!:::: (/) 0 (/) (j)U'J"'O=.E()-oro o>Q)o>O>IDc-c:CI)ctO..... -cO) ern 0..002 vQ) o.~.;:: lJ) co.r:::.en22 co~ .- > 0._ .- - Q) m'- :;caQ)cccro2-gg'I....:>(f)~m OO.2::::JID_OroCO .-_Q);>Q)o<: = x+-'> 0'- > -- c >. OmoO><DcaE>::Jl....co:=5EQ. ....... mc....._Q. ..cO~ro_"O:t:::- -o~"o~O'::Jmg2~E-oooc~~ ~m~~_g~ci~.~mo>~~&8rou 0>"0 _ C -0 Q) C N 0. r.n.E .-:0 co Q) Q) Q) ..c(])(/)._(])"O'C=o(f)uro._~-~o LO"CU co -15::J 0>:5 5.. 0>::1(3 rJ) W"w":; rJ) ~~~~2Q)ororon~uQ)~~crrrJ) mOrnro"~~.5~~roc"5~nuo~~ C1l 'tii 0 - VI VI ::Iiij ... .- CU .~ "'C Ul_ - :>. c lD 1:: EIJ) C1l t::~ 0.. ttl 0 Gl g-~ - :c OUC 'iij .- lD c 0>15 E 0 .!; '" t:: Q. Co.. ttl VI C"'O a. Gl .!!!ClD 0:: o..ttlO - OJ- lD 0> C _ lD r::~~ :a~~ .- '- ~(J)Ci. Gl "'OlJ)a. :; ~ C e O>IJ)O O>ttla. coca "'C oo.~ .....rna. G> O"'1ittl ..c u lD J! lD lD lD Q) Ul u_..c u..c..c cc- C__ C ttlo.<:: ttl ",c.<:: 0 '" - U)o~ E ~ 2'~ IJ) lD ~ .- 0 '0) (5 ~ C Q)C"OC: C .<:: Q)o f; c: "0 .Q Gl +-' (0"0._ E "- - co.-- o IJ) > rn o > rn Gl -~ e E .....~oE Q. '- Ea.'- "- E Ci,,- 0 '- 0 .Q L. S E .;:: Q)lD..... 1....Q)Q)c: 0.. 0...0 .5 0.. 0...0._ >.~ >.~ "'OlD "'OQ) G> .Ole .a e UllD (fJQ) l:! -<.9 -<.9 ::I .~"O c .!!! "0 e 0 ~cco ~c:co Ul erno.. Erno.. G> '- '" IJ) C1l G> :!E c o :;:: C1l OJ E :!E Q) O)+-' (J) ~>.- L.. "-"0 L.. ()) Q)'+- .r=.r=.~ro==roQ)oQ)o,+->o -- mro-5.c......... co:;::;c: ....... u.cco t::"OQ) ~(f).o>o 0>' om:aQl:lQ)m-c :::J+:; .Du:JEo:t::'+-C:::~~,+-(.) ~ Q)(/)c.t:woai oroa>J!! Q)"O:lwoIDc;c-"'O'-.......><D s...,a>C"OL.,c.o c.co>c.- ro"-+=-O'-> '-__...,CU Q)~Q) Oc: Q)--....... EW.<:: -o..c: c..o 0 "--ow Q}.... g?"COQ)Q) ::J .COQ)VJco....... "-0 E =.::.~(/)"U~oxo-, U E "'0 ttl IJ) ttl C lD OJ.: Q)"O C co ~c:~~5"O.QQ) ~cQ)m .SQ)~.Q ~o'-rocncQ)Q).~.~ ~"Oe-=cCJ)Q).."J,...(]).;;; >>a. ..... 'UO- .JQ).o~ Q)"Oa. Q) Q)N.-.!Q.c.Ec. c-5L..m<( -= =o"-+-' o=--'-a. COco :EroQ),+-,- COCO$; <DOl ~..c.8coa.rooQ)c.!:E .8..c.c OW wEEw>.Qw "'0 ~=- X >. 0 cOroco"OQ)C/Jm>. ID$32==0(5ol...>IDcroc..c.c ,-'- Q) 0 1....'- 0 m '- m Q) co (J) Q) OC/)Q)U)=Ct::',+-OCO: .....cn:t:-o :OC5:ce88.Q)~~.c""'~~E Co 0-0 .2:L........~>.L..U) ca:;::;_:;::;ct).9t)0 <aro~Cc "0 g ~ ~ CO::3-o Cll o>m.s.2::l(3 Q) ..00l:;Q:::,,-"O<o.!:c'-u)"'O(f) E (O"'O(f):-'-Q):'= :.;:::;COO>O____ T"" co c 0..Q - ~ a."" .;:: tJ) (f) ro ,J.. I'~ 0 <(a. 2 ~ co a. ~ ~ ~ 0 Q) ::J ::J ~ u.JV 0 (f):> (f) m co 0>___ 0."'0"'0__ '- ~ Q)Q)O lD IJ) Q) E>"'O:t:::.. - C .cco aaoQ) ..9"'OQ) 0 0--0> .:::ou~2cc~ t -E'- o >OQ) (f).! 0 co C? 0 o~"'O 0 co - ::J - ~ en +:J --. C - 0._ Q) al:: C = '+- .~ 0 c: ~ 0 "'0 '- co g> _ .Q li=o.c :5Q)--."'OQ)Q) c'ot) Ol- Q)~.-::: Q) Q) 5 ~~ c:a (J):J .!: en> 0 3:: m '-:'1:: 0 0 U) E Q) ~ tCQ):J>'co--.oQ)--1_ -U) 0'::-::; Q.'-LL Q.rn . Q) ~ro c: ..Jm O-UJ,-UJQ)""i::CO EO. o.rnU)-.!; E Q)~e 0 e.<:: lD"E- (.) o 0..0 ttl o~a."_ .- '-.c"'O 0 tJ)-,-"'O.- 0- Q) '-CC_Q) ~--Q)(J)Q),-Q)..c: 0- 'S t:::: = ..c: --.- '- (/) .c a. -. -- -Q)>occ~LLcoQ)'E-"'" IDa> "'0 V) ..c: 3:: -'C -- "'0 0 > c::Ja>Q.V) --.a>ccQ)C)c:Jm (0= g ~--'~~ro 3::_.5 00"'0 Q) OlCC co cc2T""--.-.::::" >.V)"O '-~- c..c:.-I.....-T"".Q...::::;::;:J:JQ) ~ .- ooc..- V)M_ . c"'Ou- 0 fu t:: E-a>N",""'OO>o>CCO-..c: 02 '~..c: T""Q)'u>.-3=~- 0.._ 0 Q; - Q) T"" "'0._ +:: -..c: 0 Q) x U) 0 _ E "'0 M C ~ 'c>~"'" c '- Q)ucro ONQ):J:Jo'~:J.E U)(])'-~eUU)E(J)'+-:J '-a> ~ '~"'O 'f- (]) C m Q) _ '- "'0 _ .0 .. go. 0,- ~~ ou.Q (f).Q 5i; ~5i (f) ...... I.... _T""-..__ m= >..c: co >~ T""-Q)Q)T""u..c:o CO (])_'-Q) 0 I =.c..cM C Q) a>~..c: '-'f- a.,-::J OO<(-_NCC>cn_(J)a.O(f)a.~ . o o '0 tOO ~ o E ~ '" e 0.. '" " ." .9 'c o :;: " .2 10 g ~ ]i 'ii '" o :r: iii " o '8> Q> rr: '" '5 o Q> E Q> I- '" <0 .,. o ... o <i' o o ~ 0.. => Y Ii:: . . . . . 0>- U) 0> 0> .~a5 c.5 0> c: ""C ::J"'O m .""CU)Q>.5 :a ., erQ) 0."0 (\j co..c: C) fa "- Q) 0> Q)"---CO - C) 0> (J).~ c Q) ""C 0>_ >,__ L.. Q) 0> en c mEDE'253m'~DU)S5 m~~g ~~~L..ccO~L..Q)m""C>. ~..c:a.m OSU)2roo~OQ)~OQ)D_OU) E Q)D>'Q)~Q)~Q)a.'-C=-CQ)_Q)L.. O_C"'O -Q)oo>~Q)'-roQ)oc5E CW"WQ)ODCCOEE~EC"cc m'~o>m..c:C=m~L..1::D'-1::ro~O- ::J....... ...... m::l......a.::J :::I- ff) Q).5~ >.ro..c (/)05 a.ro en 2:~ CJ) ~<D2 .~5~~D~U)'~Dro~Q)ro~.~ro~.~ Q)""CoQ)2C~Q)U""COD""COQ)Q)ca. ..cccQ.mQ)'-..cc(J) =c......c..croo -roo- '-Em-rocc)roro~-_ t- O - 0> 0..1:: 1i5 0 --E C:..c c: Q. _ Q) a. -==~o ""C-~ '2(J)~'2-=""Ca. ~EE"Oa.~..c~E~cc.~c~E'5ro '~~~'5a.Q)=~~1i5~ro>ro'~~eQ) 0.. a. a.D ., 0 ;;: 0.. a. "'0 0.. a. [!? 0.. 0.. a. a.,s ~ o WI/) ::In; ....- C'CI;t::: "'c Ul_ ~ '" 0.. Q) f! I/) c o Q. I/) GI 0::: - c Q) E W 1::t ., 0 g-S _ ooc .- Q) 0)- E cD ._ ::J 1:: Co..., C"'O a. ~CQ) 0...,0 .S! ::I 'tl GI ~ (,) Ul C o ;:: '" ... C Gl E GI C. E GI e ::J o Ul >. "'0 ::J U5 ., :e c i!! ::I I/) '" Gl :s c o ~ 0) E :s "Oem Co ., "'0 O)WC C C ., .-.2> (/) "'OmuCf) e_~..Q;! OJ~~I.... _0.-0 o '- Q)-'U ::J "O'm Q) 0 L....ca;-C Q.W"Q) Q; Q)cL..a. ..erne(/) +-'000) -=+=>=-= 02:gE Q)ro..:::;LO W W ~ ::; Q) c 0 o..c 0 +-' 0-:'00 Q) 6 0)1ij -C. .-.f: L.. """O:!:::+-' O)::JE., ..cl:::;;:.=t- co._(/) Q) ~:SCQ)C -J...oo=a> LI.J Or./JO) - C Q) E 1:: ., a. Q) o 0) .5 C C ., 0.. ;>. "'0 ::J U5 ., :e E ., -.... "0 "'OQ)Q) 2c..c: em::- .Q g ;>.;>. 0_1::.0 ::s (/) ~~ . l:::;;roOIDQj' (l)Q)L,.........Q)_ c L.. a. .- o co I.... (/) O - a._ 0>(/)-0 .cCW-Q) U)"- L.. Q).~ ._ 0> co 0 0 -CCQ)L..L.. ..o_cma. co(/) c.Q) 1i)>.~"O.c: Q)c.~Q)- =a.E>'Q "::J 0 .c:(/)0L..L.. (/) L... C. Q) "U-Ec c c: Q) .- 0 mcoQ)>.u U+-'-= .- C co +-' Q..a>o._(/) C.EoCco .. <( a. LO Q) 1? en .- en "U ...... 'C"'""Q):Jco.(j):J 1.c:c::rQ)Q)0 (lll-Q)_,-w - C Q) E~ 1::.... "0 g-S _ Ooc .- Q) 0)- E cD ._ ::J 1:: co..., C"'O a. ., C Q) 0...,0 .<:: - ';: ;>. "'0 ::J U5 <ii E C " " t'" ~ o E I'! 0> e n. 0> ~ ~ .B -2 " :;; ~ -Q 1;; 0> "' ~ "" J!! .5. V> " I ro ~ " -0, " 0: '" "5 " " E " ?- M <0 '" o ..;. o " o o ~ n. ::J y Ii: "U+-'L.._(/)Q) CCOOCO.c: . ma>.....o> -c UCCa>.....O O>.~ Q).- em+::: c"'OEa.o -0 .-mQ)ID""O>.::J ""0 00> CO.,b ~C.C03:ID""Of/) rnQ)-U)..o L... C ma. Q)O +-' 5: Q) >,._ a. () ~U>.c:comQ)L.. .~= +-' 3:.c: 0 ~ Om'E"OU>c""O Ci..c:Q)CO Oc CI)>O(l)cm +-'Q)L.."U_ O>CL..Q)CO\UO> :5 m c..c: e:5.~ _.20...... (/)""0 oa.-.~"O tJJ ~ c.. 0 c Q) (J) Q)<((I)~co+-,_ ~ (/)""0 00 :1Q)""O_2c>. o:5m 0 Q)+-' (0 U -ec~..5"O C 0- .c Q)O"U~(I) -U .c:~Cm ~ +-'uco-Sccom [J)2cnEQ)"'.... ..c............ 0(/)0 o.-cnQ):JroQ) N:s C Q) O.-.O'U -J...Ool::=o"oQ)c I.L.I ocncomcQ) >. ~ COQ)"Oa>c o .c..c UJQ)"E~ .cQ)oCO C\I t:: ....... .....+-'::..+-':+:O -0 -Oo-co- --0> ro Q) 0 roQ)_~N>. E We .co Q)-C:Q)Q)u~.~m..c ..c~'5-~ tc ~ a. c '-.c R Q) t.,.-t5.c ~ Q) () ro Q) 0 wQ)~_rn~roro~~ ~~~ox Q).o ~MQ)~.5~~Q)o~ ~Q)~Q) 0_ .~_ c~o~iUJQ)-Q)'- "O~..c~ .5m UJ 'sroxo~mu~oE c~ "0 u.c""'uC/l ~_Q).crnUJQ)C~IDC COcroOC: commw :oCIJc -ccooo-o o.c;:ECO c>>rn'~U .~[-grog>.Q31>"5~:a; ~()C/l0 _c~~ '-"EQ)Q5.cco....'Oc(l)b co.....c<(C> Ol.Qa.......,; UJ._~>~IDrn"OroroUJ 0.3mo.5 '~~oi~ "'000_ IDa> ...."- !1>oc.en~ roQ)->~ c....."U 00.."'0-=0>0""0 - \'" Q) ...... 'S_c""O_OQ)Q)'VC Q) a. "'0.... _a.~~_ >m.-Q)~c.cL..'ffi~- ~._Q)C> oOroo.o .c~~C> 0""'0..0-0 =~enroE >.cmom Ol-o>.ro~~O_ '~UJ (0'- '- .o.QUJQ)_E ~Q)=Q5tm-UJEc.~ .c~.>.o ..... ~ _.~~~~~~~eo.c m~~.o ~~~~o O~Q) oua> -....- ~..... ~rocoE m~c~=x~~UJom c~o-o~ ~OUJUJro u_&~roQ)'_~~Q)Q5 m.-Q)Q)E ~X.__~ .g f/) _ ~ ~ -0 g>'a~ ~ Q) .~ ~ ~ i5 cD <Ii :0 ~ ~ ~ co ~~ ~ <Dc ~w.2 ....~.~ 2:~'- Cig c co ORE E ~ 0) ~ :e a. co CD >'c ~ 0 c' <( Q) '- 0. Q) .Q Q) rn.... a. Q) "coQ)~.2.5()=Q)OL..W.. ~omE~..~c2~o ~ ~w_> > Q)~N ~~ '-~Q)Q) C\I'c-~~n Q)-o'<=_NQ)E_~-oE~~N~>oQ)->c I~rnp=~o~ -~ ~o ~o .<= Q)~ m05aECE5~.~G~~uG.uo~~E~-o5 l'll 10 c Us.!!! :;, l'll -.- CU~ -c 1/)_ ~ l'll D.. GI :a 'iij c o c. C/l GI 0:: - c Q) E C/l t::~ ro 0 g-:s: _ Ouc .- Q) 0l]5 E ,5:;, t:: co.. ro c-oo. J2eQ) 0.. roO - c Q) E t:: roo g-:2 Oc 010 ,5 () cen C-o J!!c o..ro ~ :;, 'tl CI) .c u en c o i - C GI E GI ii. E ~ -oro Q)'- ~-o a. '-'::; 0 -oo~ 1II~0. ~o.o. Ol ro ro Q) Q) _.0.<= o=~ Q)ro.<= o~~ ffi Q) 3: 2o~e "'erno U) _._ '0 rn a. 15 ~~Q)E '-E~'- O.....~O 'L: Q) e 'C 0.. a. 0._ "" E Ol .0 Q) c.:::Je.c -- en m ~ -0_-0 e!a;n..~ Ol'<= - 0 mU)e",=::~ ~~oo::::;c 'OccOQ) rlocE ~=~()t:: c2:C/len[ roro::::J>.Q) iilQ)O.oo _!:!! ~ g! ~ rn _O..;-E>.5 --e>oe CiE:JCie -i:: Q> u.. a.J2 0.. a. ro ro 0.. CI) ~ :;, o rn ~ro -o~ ::J Q) _c enQ) -(9 -~ -0 e ~ero .Eroo.. ~~ -oQ) Zc enQ) -(9 -~ -0 e ~ero croo.. ~ :;, C/l Cll CI) :E c o :;::: Cll 01 E :E . - c Q) E C/l t::~ roo g-:s: _ Ouc .- Q) 0l]5 E .5 :::l t:: co.. ro c-oo. J2c:Q) 0..11I0 Ol c '6 ~ Ol - o Q) u c ro ::J C/l ,!!1 0_ :::"E o ~ -L: Q) 0..0. ~o. f-,.... u. ~ o Eo I'! 0> EO! "- 0> C 'C .9 '2 o :;; c o ~ '" g> ~ ]g 'Q. ~ o :r: m c o '0. " << '" "5 u " E " f- '" '" .,. o ..t o " o o ~ "- ::J 9 Ii ~ -0 ::J - en ro "" 'c . . . . - c Ol E 00 t~ CO 0 5l-s: _ Ouc .- Ol Ol.o E .S: :J t cILCO C'OO- .!]lCOl ILcoO ~ :J '0 CI) ..c u II) c o ~ ... C CI) E CI) C. E Ol ..c - o - Ol U c_ COCl) .oC k C :J CO 1i).<: :0,0 >.0 C~ CO C 00 _u k'O .Q 0 k 0 IL<;:: >. '0 :J U5 CO E c -0"00) E Olo:!: k 0 00 e>'-5ti=... '+-:t::: r:T Q) 0 cOQ)..c.~ o Q) .... +-' 0 +:J.J::rnf/)~ co ...... +-' CJ) ~ c.9'Ee~ E~~~:::o :J Ol Ol OQ)OOlC ~ .~ Ol:g 0 ...... 0> L...- +-' C Q...c t "EW.C:-(ij&. ..0 '+- Q) - c :JO.c:JI... Cf) (J) +-'.~ Q) - a. o>...c: 1;) CO o.f: ~ CO ..c ,"\ +-' Q) 00 '-' CO Ol __ >,.s:! ..c Q) cE'U.......-S CO C- O L..._ 0 C :.=<(~20 O'.Q)......_ a.C/)Q)CI)Q) .. <( :::>.s: B 2 ~(])Q)O>oro I'".c..c c o..c \.J 1-...... W... 0 - c Ol Eoo t"'" cok 0-0 OlS:_ OuC .- Ol OlLi E .S: :J t cILco C'OO- .!]lcOl ILcoO Ol ..c - .9 Ol u c_ coOl .oc k c :Jco 1i).<: u~ >.e c_ CO c o ou - k'O .Q 0 ILk 0 <;:: >. '0 :J U5 CO "" 'c '0.... c.- cac>~ 5 Q).~ co .- E c 00 +-' .- Q) lIjcoEu <;:CliDc '[: "'0 +-' ~ Q) c: Q) co >ro"OQ) C..c 0>(3 ~ tb.2 L.. .;:: u: i:: 0 ,..... Ol 00 "OIl)Ol ::......(1):.0 Ec....:J Q):::... -gE:2OO 00 t.- CO =coS:u co a. .- ..c Q) "'0 0> 000 lij g cuj..c:o CO . 00 .2 => u: Q; 0. Q) ...c-ci a....c C/) t Q) co -::i..2.~ NOlEOl>'g. u~~~ffi~ - c Ol E t CO 0- Ol o Ol c 'c c CO IL >. c CO 000 -Ol k .- o:t:: .- > k ._ 0-0 00 11l >'Ol CO U 'Oc Oco C') .0 k C :J co- ..c .~ - '0 00'0 00 C .!!1:J o e ZOl >. '0 :J U5 CO "" 'c Q) "'0 >'''0 en I-cQ.Q)"- co:J:Jij::(J) o u'-- . L..oo~Ja ~0l0C08 o >.cn OlOl.9 c;;::.o.<:O co _- l... 0> 0 c:a '+- a.. C ..co- '-OO>(/J ~ ;;::.s: BOl e..c~ro~'U ~_p:Jro~ -'c-ou mO~Q)o-g EaJ Eai CO k Ol k .8C]):::1--a>2 C . '0.2: 19 (J)o:g o(J) >. +:;>.ctIo> Q)c'5:t::l...c i:::c",,()o.~ ~3:~Q)Q)o :> ..c>- 0>......"00 .E "'O-occD(J)"'O <Da>:'O.....cuQ) U)L..I....._Q."- .. ::l'S :J U> "5 ('t) 0 crt) Q)"O rr ,I, 0 Q)'_ ..c C Q) vlJ..L.."'O_mJ... - c Ol E t CO 0- Ol o Ol c 'c c CO IL OlOl cOl .- '0 '0.- _ k "5..0 .000 ....00 o Ol Olu UU c CO CO Ol :J..c 00- 00 k .- 0 0.... _:t:: o E 'C Q5 ILO- >. '0 :J - II) (5 "" 'c Ol C 'w :J ()) 0) '0 .;:: .0 CO oOl :J C k C -CO 00.<: B u u Ol co:5 ..c Ol 00'0 c~ CO :J U 0 == (/) O-t ~o .. 0- '<TOlo- , ..c :J () f- 00 " o '0 _ t- ~ o E .. 0, e 0- '" .~ .9 'c o ::;: co .2 m '" '" ;; ]l c. w o I 'iij co o '0. ~ '" .. '5 " ~ E ~ ... '"' CD .. 9 .. o '" o o ~ 0- :::J Y Q' ~ c e;;,!! j III .. .- s== (/)= ~ III Q. Gl :a 'iij c o Co I/) Gl 0:: ..... c 0) E t:: m a. ...,;'cocn_<<> ca.cco QlO)'-O) g>EO~ E g> -- t:: '" j t::-- cm""oomc Ca.~ "'c mO)o"OIDm D.OS~OD. 0_ _c .00) :J E D.t:: ~ :J "CI Gl .r: o (/) c o ~ III .. C Gl E Gl Q. E Ol C C 0) 0'- Ol .,32"'0 ~"5 }i m.o a.m'" ~.....O :il a. 0 0) 0) 0 _om "u; c: Q) >-m..c: c:J- m '" ~ .~ 42 o~_ +-' 0'- ~ -- E 0"0 ~ "C t: Q) D.ma. Gl ~ j o (/) >- "0 :J - en m :;::: 'c Gl ~ j I/) III Gl :2: c o ~ III Ol E :2: 0) ..c: - ..... 0) 0 :t:c: '" 0 , -- c- o ~ 0) m .0 a. o ~ -a. "00) Ql- ~ -- -- '" :J . o-c- o Ql ~._ c woe ._ ::::J co _~..c: ",- 0 .- '" OlCO) 00..c: -0- .Q <b VJ .o~", "'0 a. e Q) = (.) ~mm m Ol Ql ..:JCCD LO "C "'0 I O":J"C o <l: "0.0 ~ .E "" g>E -- 0) ala. ~Ol OlC ..... -- 0"0 0)=0) 0:J0l c.D:g m ~ ~ :JQ.D '" "0 '" .~ c ~ om 0 -:=: (.) ~o E m ~ Ql 'C Q) a.. a.-E >- "0 :J (jj ro :;::: 'c C "0 Q)~ }/)Q) 5 .9 cut> =OOQ)O Q)(J) "CT""" Q) Q)..c....... DE 'c~UJm;:-~ :::0 ..o-Q)-..cEm \U 0)='._00_ ..cO) -'-0 co :J...-:..cn cn.c :5..c:JQ)O(l)"UQ)w""" L.. rnt)---l(f) :J.~ O>Q);: O:J 0)0)1::.0"0-- . ~ 0 -0 ..c ..c "- -c 'C =5 .Q ~ c ~ 0)-_>< (]).o._iij- o...cWL.. Q)L.. +-' (.) ._-:Jo"O (])(])o"O>- ro lO (.)....... c::::::: O)..c m c (.) roT""".E-ro~c="'CroQ) a. "r- :!:::': 00 ';;; ~ ro 0 $ rn.~ ... "'~....."'O co-- ~ c.. E 0 ~ >< c c .__ 0 U ......<(..0.......0"" Cll Q) 0 0 CO:J ...... L..CI) .,00.-0 O)c~a.=>8QlO"'EO :!:::': (]) _ ct:1J (f) 2 (f)._ "- en Q) -;;:;; "'P "_"_ Q) +-' ro..,..... a. ~'"-'-..c: ~O) >. +::;..c co:::::: Q.. +-' en 'U'- L.. C Q) CI)"U.QQ) E....... 5 c ~ L.. ro..c_C lJjOoCOm"w -Qlcmo-..-L.. --- ..c Comt)Q)L..Q)Q)(f)O....... Q) (.) l.....Q>"C.,CQ)...... > ((Ii:= o>$..c:=: +-' :J -0 2 Q) a.Q.C_o Q) Ql-""" Q) Q) 0..-- -- ......t+=- Q) (f) - $: 0 co-c:!:::': 0).- a. ....c:0)'"00)0 "'..c:"OE CD-Xa>=L..>,Q) I 00 ,." c co..c 0 ">- - > C r.n E 0 ......,-__....... LL.<DO_ 0 . - c (]) E t:: m a. Ql o Ol C 'c c m D. Ol C '0 Ol C o ~N. t;:- ~ o E I!! 0> e n. 0> .~ .9 ." o :;; c: o ~ g ~ "" J!l C. '" o I rn c: o "lJ' '" OJ [j " E " .... M '" ". o ,;. o '" o o ~ n. :J y ii >- "0 :J (jj ro :;::: 'c C (J) 25 L- .Q -- +:; Q) --o..c m c.- t:: .2> Q) ~ :J :!::: E.-- E Ql 5 0) L.. .--..~ en":;..c :J C 0-== g oQ~;:,- ""-,.,>->- "0 L-U ro cocE 0_ 0) OJ!! Ol>- (j;:JCO:!: ..c: ~ 0> 0 :;i t::'-..cQ)Q) .a m (5 :5 05 >...c '- ~ Q) +-" ...... +-" '- coco_ co '- CO"~!9 cO>.2c Q)(f).na.a> >O)"OO)E Q)::;a>..cC Q)(f)(f)+-"O oo..c co 0 .... "!:::: t"-_0)a.0) > IE> C OEE._OQl . . . . - C Q) E t ro a. Q) o Ol C 'C C ro 0... - C Q) E t ro a. Q) o Ol C C C ro ii: ro ro rn ~U rn UU _UC OOWWID _"Dc WmwID ~ wroIDro ID~>~ ~ WCOID(tJ ID~>~ c ~~C~ OIDO- c ~~C~ OIDO+-' ~ --.~u ~>~~ ~ --.~O ~>~~ CO=OrnWID OonSWCO=OrnWID oo~~w ~ro-~C~WWon u~ro-.5c~wwun u rn~c~IDucID~roi~rnic~IDucID~roi~ ro~.Q~IDc.~~uu=8ro_.Q~IDc.~~UU=o -c~ID~rourow~'-EID_C~IDnrourow~'-E~ oro->w~E~.5rn ~oro_>w~C~.5rn ~ ID.QCroroIDO~ro._nroID.QCroroIDO~ro._Dro U-Q)-~C ~Ew~-u-Q)-~c ~Ew~- Ca.E~ >c" _w~ca.E~ >c" _w~ n U->ID~IDro 0 n U->ID~IDro U roro~IDCQ)OWo~cIDIDrom~IDCQ)OWO~CIDID ~ uE --C=~E~ uE --C=~E j!~Q)~~3gEroCroQ)j!~Q)~~3groECroID O ID~ID--- '~~o ID~ID--- .~~ _~U-~IDOC~IDW-_~U-~IDOC~IDW_ '- "E'- 0 O>..c "'0 'co ..c:!: >,. 0 '- 'E'- 0 c>..c "0 'm ..c:: ::: >. 0 ~,-~~ro-ct"'O~n_.Q'-~bm-ctu'nb '- ID '-'- C >,00 ID C C 0'- '- ID '-'- C >,00 ID C C 0'- 0... a.a.U ro~aJ a.ro 0 uUo... a.a.U ro~aJ a.ro 0 uU " o -q", 1;:- ~ o E l" 0> 2 a. 0> C 'C $l '2 o ::;; c .2 1ii g :iE '" l!l '1i '" o :r: ro c o '0, Q) '" ro '5 " Q) E Q) ?- M '" '<t <;> '<t ~ o o ~ a. ~ 9 Ii >- "'0 ~ ii5 ro :e C >- "'0 ~ ii5 ro :;:: 'c "Dee C Q) m I ID roEE6 ..c m_::J -- co: m..c"O :td rn~_~ E,c-wQ) s....cD(QQ)Q)> Q) c....c ..c e 0 a. u-::Ju Olco...Q)wO.!!l cQ) IDoo"'O .-:I:'IDWIDW "'0 ';;:..c en L... c ~3:-~(ij'ro O>co..c"'O '- E co :!:"U:J O~ro""ID -c .......:J'- o'_crouc Q)L...Q)..c=ro OID -roE C c E (I)..... ro<D<DCo~ ~-.-~.~c:::..c f/) (/J 0)"'0 0"'0 .~ ~ ro C +:: C ID E C 0 .w ro ..c-.-oco(/J ..... c.- a.G> orornQ.)(/)u -'-u>cn.-,,- r.....- co.5 "'0 ~ ~.Qo.O--I"'Oga> oo:g-~o@~~ .....-Q.)"-..... o~..cQ)c 0.'- ..... a. Q) .- Ol e x ..c 0 0 c.. Q.) ~o-- ID ID .... cro -OID ?;..c-S.......c QO._{/)-'- .... W C ~ro ro .~enu:a.8 ~cQ)c 0'"._ .0'- .!: -g So.. 0 c::: Q5 - a. c .Q r.... g Q) :t: 0.- Q) (/J (/J ..... ..c.- Q en -- ~ a. <Den ....J(/J ~eco:a en ~ Q . roo "'0 ~ r....cn"'Oc-gco Q)~croro>. c: ::lCQ .n ~_ 0 Q~~co-.-~ -g .a !1 g> ~ .b! ro~ucoEo ..-uro..c-'-..c NQ) :=uro..... ,..c=tQ)Q)~ O~roroo....l:;ro ~ o en.!! ::J III ... .- J!=: (1)= >> 1:: III 0.. CI> :c 'iij c o c. en CI> It: - C CD E t <<I a. CD o Ol C 'C C <<I 0.. - C CD OlE .~t C <<I Co. <<I CD 0..0 - C CD OlE .~t C <<I Co. <<I CD 0..0 Gl "S 'tl CI> .r: u (I) c o ;: III ... C Gl E Gl Q. E g>ca1? 13'0 g> .- CJ)+-' :J """-- "S;: >c"C tJ).;::;o 0 o <<I C OlO'- E.c <<I E ..cU .S:Q)..c ta>(/)-L..-=..c t <<Ia..airoQ)~_ co Q)Q)'-~O)U)o Q) -.c "U c L.. +-' ro-.f:~o:m"O co rn:EoL..oQ>Q) 0> cccC)c-~ c "c::J<Dcot.n<:(E 'C :J L...!:2 ~ ._ .Ll :J "'0 O:JOOlo>-:J ."'0 C) . ~...J.n c L- rJ) <<J Ol . ctJ)_L..":CctJ :Jet/) -- CD 0 0 0 lI) II U .- CD OE......+-'__UJ Q)OE rn>~----CD- Ol> r,-c:CcoCiiE 1.- ct)coooQ).cQ)ct) O<<lalEEclI)I-0<<l Ol C '5 o E .c t <<I CD ro Ol C -c :J "'0 Olll) .5 Q) Q+:i 9>:2: c- olil CI> U ... ::J o (I) >. "'0 :J U5 ro "" 'c >. "'0 :J U5 <<I "" 'c >. "'0 :J U5 <<I "" 'c f ::J en III Gl :i!: c o ;: III Cl E :i!: CD Ol CD :t:c:..c U) "C ..... , 0- C_ '" o .- Cll) OCD cEE <<I .2: -- ",u U'" CD'- "'0 Ol Ol __ 0 C > 0'- 0_> ... C 0 C.oE CD.c _",t - a. '" '" Q) .c . (/)""0-- cOli) menS - Q) C _ (I) Q) "''''<<10 .~.~..c (/) c..(J)c..w a.o=+.- ('l] 0 co c Q) Ol '" co c .2 cV) (]).c"t:: c.. 1.c~:Ja. 01-"'"'0'" ~chCcD'~ ro .~ 2 a.:5 ~ (f)3.~ ..cQ) "U C ~ti~Q).5 ~ro ffi g w_o..c ~ ...... CO~ \UC,)+-' :>..cQ) 'oJ >c "UO) "C Q)~.n"U 2ccoa> CDc"'O"'O~ .oCD"'OC "'CDuE h._<DCc =>::)(0 ~u5x- ro€~roQ) ~"Uo"U wf~ (f)::JQ) It.... C.cCD ~E(J).... ~~(/)Q)~ tJ) ~L..L.._ o._~L..:JQ)' _rotJ)~ Q)a>c..Q) "00. s-E c(/)w"E q::a.<J)> en ~ _ IDQ)C .- .c.- CD"O......w \U E.....wQ) c:5-m ..... Q)'- = .- e! E:E Q) .- VJ c ~ccElI)w "'O.o-Q) -;:lI)'- W:::::Jm ~o ...... o c= ~Q)~.o-ci '-~Q)Q) cO;oCDCQ)~ _to.cO> Q)oc~ '" "'OoE~ og?lI)<<I~ .o_:J .2CJ)'-=<D'c U>C-CUQ) m'~Q)~ ~co>coQ)o ~._-~~tJ)CD .co.OOl.: c.t: C)L....... -Q) <<I:J O):JCO:p(J).- o.mO> ~ (f)Q)L.. ~"'OCD-E"'cO EE>oEu lI)'-Ocr m ...... cro1i)~ _~_.o cE lI)lI)Uo,<::: CD .............. L..Q)w"E EOCD- ~~ro.~.Qeo "'OCDm~~ID ._E~~ :J-ID~~~-- _> IDe u--cuE _>(/)_w_ uOu:iL..m ID~> -0 >!l1 CDu-<<IE o.Q)CDCD .-::J ()~..... m_~ .'_ Q)-(i.i C). U) u-- Q) ~oU)Q)~()~~oL..U)Q)L..~ ~L.. o~15:5 ~ ~ EO().8~ a.~o<( ~~ ~ . - c CD E t <<I a. CD o Ol c 'c c '" 0.. Ol C 's; o E .c t <<I CD '" Ol C 'c :J "'0 g'lI) __ CD O:.tJ fj>>:~ c- olil g. '!~ t: ...... " Ci o Eo ~ C) e lL C) C 'C B "E o ::;; c o 1ii g ~ "" .!!l "6. "' o I .. c o "50 " a:: '" 1l Q) E Q) I- <') '" ... o .j. o " o o ~ ~. Ii:: >. "'0 :J ii5 '" "" 'c . . . as .. as C U5!i :::J as .. .- ca~ "c 1/)- ~ as D.. Ql :e III c o D- III Ql 0:: c Q) E 1:: '" 0. Q) o Ol c 'C C '" ll.. .2! :::J "C CIl ~ o I/) c o :;> as .. c CIl E CIl C. E Ol c '5 o E ~ 1:: '" Q) 00 Ol C .;:: :::J -0 g>11I .- Q) Q+:i 'i" ::2: c- olil CIl o .... :::J o I/) >, -0 :::J U5 00 :;:l 'c CIl .... :::J III as CIl == c o ~ Cl E == Ol E~ .~ ~ ~~-g "0 C e .Ql € ""0 Q.:!:::: co ~O:>. roE<1> Q) >,Q) --0 C >:t::+-> "OQ)::I oUCOL..Q)"U..-.. O :;::;:<1>"- (J) Q)'-'''''CQ)c_ .!!!..c:Q)->Q)Q) -o_EooEo Q)"'CEo~E:J ro~~Q)~8~ tn+->Q>C>>Q)Q)O> c.~~ro~L..'- "co 0)15 ID CO..c: ~ EOcc~:!::::+-> Q).8Q)~o:;::O ....c 0....-0- <1>o.c__::::JQ)CJ) +-' (])= tJ) 0 L..+-' <u_mo-rnmo '-m.J::Q)a>Q..CO .oQ) c. U) n. L.. Q) a. -....E t co ro >.2 CL._ a> -;:JccQ)""C >OloCOQ)..o"- >,.5Q)+-'E 0 c-oEc,-=> t--"''''Q)Q)"uCllCO I '- >a>..c:o O::!::: OIl-- Q) tJ) f/) +-' - c Q) E 1:: '" 0. Q) o Ol .E; C C '" ll.. .... Olg! .E; Q) -O~ '" 0 .... .- Ol~ .....:;:: o cOl o.~ .- .... -0 Q)- Ci"c +-' E 0 ~ o Eo:: o .... III co.... 0-" 0. -0 0 ~CO ~"'O >, -0 " U5 00 :;:l 'c ......<1)"'0 0 "'Oo..c: co +-' ~Col-~ (/)(1) Q) .~ -- . Q) 1) ~ .Q+:;U)(J)..c COL.. "'0"'0 ::J (J) C +-' ~ a.::J Q)-o:JQ)o.....Eo N::::J U) ~ E+->"c-- (J) '-E 0 0.'- '0 -0 Ol Q) ~ J::Q)"'OQ)Q)____ 2 U)__ co a.t: en rom ._wen wo-U.2>o ccm<1> E:J:!:"o, roQ).c-o-o.ooEo E+-':J~:J:> - Ol._ '0 <3 Q) <Jl :> 0 0 co c> .-Q) ~ ~5:O 8 ~roE~ - U).-- Q).c::J co 0 g-oQ> ~ L.. 3: ~ rnro .-- ~ Eo.~ '" ~ E e-o C/)Q) ...... Q)a.c (.T)~oto.9l-Q)co C 00 c........c:u :0 0 c nO> Q) 0"'-- cQ) 0)0> _0> ._'-Os....Cc>..oo ...... ...... 0. co ._........ - ......o:J(])ouucO o ~-o F ~ c _.Q C toID CCO>>(j)ID 8.. c ro ~ .~t:: g a. ~ a>e!~g-oQ)R~EQ) 01 cL...o..c:Q><(o.c <(._o.m+-,,- 0..... 0- _c .oQ) " E 1l..1:: -' m 0>_ CQ.CC Q) Q)'- Q) g>EogE .- 1:: <Jl :J 1:: Cm.:x::COro a5o.oua. -Q)>cQ) ll..o>",o Ol c '5 o E <Jl ~Q) t::+:i ""5 Q):;:; -0 '" '" Olc c.2 .~ '0 "" -0.... - 0l<Jl C C '08 Ol '-0 C C 0", o o "<",, t- ~ o E ~ 0> e ll. 0> " ." .9 'c o ::; " o 1il 0> '" ~ "" l!l "0. ~ o I rn " o '0. " 0:: <II S o " E " .... M <D ... o g '" o o ~ 0. ::> 9 Ii: -q:- ~ >, '" 00:2 .2-0 Q)c2 .c.c", _0-0 -Q) mocJ .cQ)c :!:::(9- :;::Q)(j) >,.c ll.. Q.~>. E'- .0 o.c tJ~~ a;U)<tI .cCo. (/).Q ~ 1::(00- ",-0 - o C C = Q).Q o.E- 0. ~ "'go~ ~ Q) (.) 0.0 I .s::. Q) x 0 Wl-....WN III - III C en..! ::::J III -.- J9~ (1)-= . ~ III D.. Gl :a 'iij c o c. II) Gl It: II) .:.!.- '-C o (]) ~E ot: =01 .00. ::::J(]) 0..0 '" .:.!.- '- C o (]) ~E ot: =01 .00. ::::J (]) 0..0 (]) .!! Ol.c C- ::::J :a c "C 0 Gl 01 .c '- (]) Ol_ 0 ..... 02 (I) 0 C 01 C (]) 01 'C 0 0 0. C (]) 0 ~ <032 '- 0. - => > 0. C '" e 01 Gl .!!l 0.", E o - 01 Gl -- ~ Q. '- E '" .2 L.. ffi E a:~a. >- '" => Gl - rJ) ~ 01 ::::J 0 ., II) 'c Ol(]) .~~ "'- 01 C 0,0 (]) OI_(]) .....0_ OCOI Q) <<JoE::: oQ)g. C",,- 01.- 0. =>>0. ~ e co .- a. en o - 01 -- ~ '- E '" .2 L.. f5 0..'- (])- 0. 0. 0 . 0 't!\O t::- ~ 0 E !! '" 12 "- '" C 'C $I '2 0 ::;; c 0 "' '" '" "' ~ :s -0. '" 0 J: Iii c 0 '8> Q) '" '" '5 0 Q) E Q) ?- M <0 '" 0 '" ~ 0 0 S:! . "- :oJ Y Ii' >- '" => (jj 01 ., 'c Gl '- ::::J II) 01 Gl :i: c o :;::: 01 CD :;::: ~ -g~ g>1D ~ "O\!- en ~":>.. ~ <0>--<1><1> Com u L- Eo ro~ o ~""".r:: a:5..c..c Q) Q) Q).9 :J(j):;E U) co cE'i::o~ uaguuw~ro E-~Q)Q) oQ)-~ ~Q)-c~~u~ ;cnrJ)u~ iL..~~~ ouNro~x~'5Q)a.m~~ro~ ....Q)c.- EQ),.....Q)O>Q)o~"Oo- O>u> &..ooE.~ Q)..c~u.~Q)..c>uQ)_c..ccQ) Q) ~~- L..~m~w..cU)ro~>roocnQ)~ >"'oE Q) Q)Ol-~.c(])oOO"'~x.c ~~'-rn ..0--1 X _..c..c..o-Q) Q)~ -oL..C~ ~_cQ)u'o. ",rourn~ > '" - - mo (])OI (])m~~ .c II) 'E- .- m '" '" , :;: (J) '" >- _ '" - ~ ",- .~mc u ..cQ)ucnoUuO>~~oB.~~~ ~ Om"S cnUc..oQ)~~.5o..cmccnoE S~o..o rnm2m..o~>cncn.~a.oQ)..c~ ~mL..U ~a.xm cno:JuwE~urn ~'iE~u oEQ)L..~CEuQ)oou~~~ _- ~Q) cnouS..cOQ)~>_omco'- cmuxcn Q)u:JQ)UOL..~Ouua.:J~~ (])E(])(])o o>-o",c(])(J)"'E(])cE~.c~ ~cn~u~ ~~~~~ro~~~5~8~~..o >:JQ.:JI.... :J~ O>Ncn~UQ)~CQ)"""Q)u m.Qe~a. ~o50>L..50u..c~2>Ocn5 a.~a.rnQ) ~~~co'-Q)c~cc~u'-~ Ol-(])cn(/)..c Q) m~~ro..om~oo~o~~ c_CO +-' cC/)>.~+-'"'O -Q)OOa>.c..o ._~~c ~ comxccID~-Q)a>~+-' .+-,~ w~~o co rn(])o~Q)~uQ)o~~+-,Q)"'OQ)co .- ro~uo c x Eoro+-'~~~c~~Q)o x~ roc~ ._uQ)~ ~~e +-,+-,Q)~.c~~ ..Q)Q)E~oo..~ro~oQ)+-,rn~E.~.~o+-'",o~o N ~ ~~roM.-nQ)->-..o-~oo~ co~ro W,<(~po.(J)~w'wx(J)>(])OIEw=>OI'-EE(J)(]) ~ 0"::: 0..0 1o.?I ~ 0..0 n en C/) "0 a.J- e! E a. 01 - 01 C - II) II) ~"iii -.- ca= -c (J)_ ~ 01 lI.. CD II) II) :c -'<- -'<- '- <:: '- <:: 'w o C]) OC]) c ~E ~E 0 01:: 01:: Q. =01 =01 II) .0 0. .0 0. CD ::l C]) ::l CD 0:: 0..0 0..0 Ol Ol j! <:: <:: '5 '5 ~ ~ II) ~ II) "tl Olro Olro CD .l: 012 012 0 ..... 0 '0 0 (J) 0 <:: c c CD 01 CD 01 0 0 0 <:: CD <:: CD +:= ro:2 <0:2 01 ::l > ::l > - VJo2 u>oJB c CIl 11)'-01 .~ c..~ .- c...~ E o -0. o -0. CD -:!:::: 0 +-':!::::o C. '-E'- '-E'- 0,-0. 0,-0. E 'C l1> a. "t: ()) 0. 0.. 0. 01 0.. 0. 01 >, >, "0 "0 ::l ::l CIl - - 0 CI) CI) .. (ij 01 ~ 0 E E (J) <:: <:: . . . E ~ II) 01 CD :!E c o +:= 01 Cl :e :!E cQ)........=....."'''T''''lcL.Q) 0)........ .-'O~CD.-o ...... co (ij ...... "0 q::U.Q)Q)ffi~Q)~'c.o~ Q) "C; CD > ..... 8: 5 2 ~J2 ~-g~ui':::~~~rooEcoo. 'li"'II)'OCD .!!1CDII)CD ECD -ow.ow" --1:: .0 Q) "U_L.......0- ..... .0 ~ ffi Q) -.~ 0 0 tJ) 0)"'0 (i) 0 -0- "05Q3rnxQ).5:~Q)c :;_"0 ~..c- Q) Q):!:::: :J'-..c-o oj!! ~rnU) coE-fi-g 20 t'!(]) g ::lo ..c c a..c en c'- >-. .- v>o.c::]:= .-co=>.c _N-wom 0 tj::O U) co 'C en (/J::::J C'l")._ Q) _ (V) (j) 'C 0 (]) __ 0..... (/J..c co _ .... .- c +-' .... co JB-C.c ~ 0 (j; 0 OO.....::J cc.c....: co +-'..c 0._ Q) a.Ot) 0 ro Q)~ E E.9 g.~ ~.~ ~t) 2~~rou = 0.5:.- rn'U f/) c 0 en Q; E .2 ::~u"'.~....~ 00:2 U) Q.m Q) ~ O:J ~T""""U 0).2 w...-:..ro om ~ 0. L. Q) :Jf;twC\lQ) Q)..cE ~ ~~ t) g 0 ~ ~ cO:n 0) 0,1- 0 mQi>'ro'-L. (l)T-COC .0 :: .?:: 2 Q) en 0 E Ru ~:o en ~ (l) U)+-'ro roo:J Q)coa>_..c .= ro :J-'C'- Eum L. o,13~- ....... ~ 0-<0 Q)@"x-S=>Q):e<1>.5: "'Q"O> Q) -+-' 0-.0 c..c ...c "Uocoe>C\J..co .....coQ):!:::: WI-"'ro~EoEII)N.80E:0l~ co "0 ..c'UL.U) oo~ ~-*~.g-g w"""E :!::::>,w.!B"5>Q)o ~162 ID,j:c o,Q) C CD ~ -CD <:: <:::6 CI> Ol<::.o C1>1::I-.o o 0....."0 :J ">-"'0 - +-' ~:,;:::;uo"Oo......-~u>Q)c:D :0 0)_ (tI L,...c ::1._..... Q) c: o ~.. ~ C]) 0 ro 0 c:_......_ - '- .... .c. 0 .- a. E8.2~..o+--(I)i5-5c~o :::J '~Q51i)"OI-.=Q)Q)"OUi E~oEa.:::Jffiot;::o:::Jco 'x.2 0 E"C g-o Q) 0" 2 ::: CO.!a Eo> '- (1):2 ~ O>~ x 0 Eo :::J+--2= (I) Q) (1).0 Q)'i:: <:: E E ~ ~ ~'6 ~:5 ?"O 0. .- :+:;Q)> .-......."":::JVJ "0 Q) 0.-....... co: >, CD 0....... 0 0> Q)..o a+--- >,..0 c Q) O.c. c u 32 (I) <0 >.. E == <P .2: c VJ :a co:::J.c.o:o=:,-o"O+--Q)=== a.o+--+--f/)o{/)Q).;gEt;:::::J Q).c.(I)"Cc~Q)oc "0.0 ..oVJ>Q)Q)c-croQ)Q)a>....... "C 00"O:::J+-- a.VJ o+-- 0 "Oc.oroEo>..8E~co~VJ :::Jco:roo.:::J.ocoo..o..n.O> ~((J~5E32~o~..8E.g> .. (/) ~ ..c o.x :::J: Q) '0 co '- 0 0> 10_ Ol ",ox OOC]) 1==0._0> .c.._+-->..i::....... WLL.!;u;.o E II) E~.o 0.0:5 o o "'!t- t- ~ o E ~ 00 e a. 00 " 'C $! .C' o ::;; " .Q 10 g ~ "" j!! '1; '" o I a; " o "a' Q) a: '" '5 o Q) E Q) .... .., '" '" o ..J. ~ o o ~ a. ::> !,1 ii. ClI 'Iii c tn,!l ::s ClI .....- tel:: ....C 1/)_ ~ ClI Q. GI :0 '0 c o a. III GI 0:: III -t- o c: :!:~ ot:: 0.:<11 .s::>o. '" (]) 0.0 ~ ::J "tI GI .c o I/) c o :;:l ClI C GI E GI 1i. E Cl c: :a ~ (/) Cl<ll <112 ....0 o c: (]) <II o (]) C:"lJ <11._ '" > (]) (/)0_ (/) ~ <II .- a.'C o -0. ""':=:o ~ E ~ O~o. 'C Q) a. a. 0. <II GI ~ ::J o (/) >. "lJ '" - (/) '" E c: GI .... ::J III ClI GI :i: c o i Cl E :i: ~t-g ~1? o;:~~ ..J 0 CO.-I---- Oc. tn Q) '- .t:c."'OtIJ 0.0 >"0 c (/):J(])~a.o .0....,...2> =(/)Ox-c C(/) ti=_coa>g!+-'-aoQ> co~a. Q>+-,Q):+:;"C ~<J)Q)Q)"U~t)~ro -ro.D::;_o2a>;: 0-""'(1)0(0 :2 2a>V)cc=tJ>,,(J)Q) .....,o::J(]) 0<11-'::: c:.c (/).- E "lJ (]) 0- 0> CLUe _0 (I) 0 a> "'0 0 .- +-' 0..=- I.... Q) 1......c"O C (tI :J 0 c.:t:' Q) (]) 0 :;: (]) ~ <II :;: (/) 0_ '-Q)Q.Q)L...:J m 0>(010... ..cQ>Q) :cc.~oa.ro Q)L.. cog::g -"C:-.s:::J -"-.-,.... ~ Q) ~ Cl(/)(/) -c:::J....-........J t;::::J..c~Q)roEcQ) - :;:roE (])~ ~c:C> _ _Q. :J"-C "'O_wco.c: ......."O..Q"O 0)== co.~t: gQ>co.!Bo.....3:cco '-O_Oc..... ..co> -(/)co==cocoo 0_ I-~a.- Q)Q>CO "cc.oEcoQ)"'O+-'''- <D .oa.moQ) ,OQ>COOc......I-Q)- WZ..calO:::JCl:DCJ)(1l (/) -t- O c: :!:~ ot:: o.:ro .s::>o. '" (]) 0.0 Cl c: :a ~ (/) Clro <112 ....0 o c: (])<II o (]) C:"lJ <11._ "'>(]) (/)0_ .~ a..~ o ~c. -:t:'o ~ E ~ O~o. "i:: Q) a. a. 0. <II >. "lJ '" - (/) OJ :;:l 'c ..cQ)Q)Q)Q)""CQ)Q) cnL..I....>..cQ)CI)C 'eBB;;- E m:o ~U)(I)ro .......0..... T""" -- -- r-- 0 'u ,+-OO~LO't::.....Cn oEE_LO(])O ~'-EC:T"""c.. - ..c~ ~oQ)"E:m 0__:J '-"0.0 0)-- .5'E.~ (]) 0"lJ E.5 CO +-' Q...c _ Q) NOC. --:JuG) ""(/)OLO(])O<ll..c: ~:OIDo>:a:-5io..- 0.0)>......- o.o>o~(I)cQ)O> .s::>w(])O c: :J E co~I-:;::::~.t: Q) Q) ro:J .c: L.. ~m C:.2 0 "'0 -~Q)L: o~_ (/)..0 0) 0"0 C L... ""'0 CO :':;-(1) 0 Q)"'Ocn rnQ)._c "'-:::J "Oro"Oo. coo.82..a..c "0 ........c: 0 0 c CWUCOccz..... Q) cD nO". Q) W . EIDcE+:;N1O c a> "'0 0 0 UT"""._ co.Q >co+:;uco ""0.-.... mC,TI a.Q>a>Q>~ r' C.n C"'O E c. E 10 a> 'c=,oCOC.EEo. W_(/)oroO:J._ 0 . (/) ,:,c_ ~ c: o Ql :!:E ot:: .- <II :no. '" (]) a.c Cl c: :a ~ (/) Cl<ll ro2 ....0 o c: (]) <II o (]) C:"lJ <11._ ::J > (]) (/)0_ (/) ~ ro -- c..t: o -0. ....:!::: 0 ~ E ~ O~o. -t: a> a. a. 0. <II ~oo. t:- ~ o E I'! m e 0- m C 'C B '2 o :;;; c .Q 1ij g ~ c: .!!l "0. "' o I OJ c o "6> " a:: ro ." " " E " f- .., <0 .,. o .;. o " o o ~ lL :::> >1 Ii! >. "lJ '" - CI) '" :;:l 5 C:S::"lJ--:: .- t: ..... W "lJo<ll a>:t:Uc:x E c: .- .....::>~-g o(])CI)(]) 't:~ 0. a>;:' (/) a. 0..... "- <( OCl)~ (])(/)a. .s::>_ (/) c: -. 'O(])E-2~-E 5a>~-E"ro ..... ......- a."lJ ~'-"lJ c: tI) =' a> ro: 0" Cl- Wa> ctl) C "- ........ -- CO o (])0l"lJ_ +:; mro:::s CO ~ T""" "- U "- -(!)a> (])..c: E c.:!::: a> "- 0:;:-g.8~ ~~O(/)'Q .- c: (]) "'E CO o>.s C w-oc-.- "-......-a>() ..ClO"lJ"lJ or - u '5 .3 -0 w<(~m<.9lij . . - <: Q) E t:: '" a. Q) 0 Cl <: "c <: '" 0.. Q) <: u 0 Cl <: <: "'"'0 .9 15_ <: Q) ca-Q)CJ) '" L-~"E:J <: CD rJ) "(ij Q) '" '" - E.o a. --<: 0 Cl Oro___ <: Q)OO+-, E o "0.. en C . co.""CQ)Q) E CO '-E:!:: ::J COo c.U> .0 (J)0)0._- "'0 w..cQ):Ju "'0 --+-,'-(]"Q) o .: Q) Q)'O' .90.. -'-""0_ lo... oI CiE"S;roa. .- CIJ .i::Ci>el....Q) . 0:0 0. a. a.E ~ ;>, "'0 '" - CIJ '" E <: . '" ~ '" <: o '" "'0 0-- Q)L.. C"'-:;:O 0 ..emetic +-' -N_CUQ>C 0- '" a.^ "'0 Q) .r; <: ~"w E O-oo"El....t a.Q)+='Q)~co I>"'E'-a. C1Jet::Q)Il::Q) o a. 8. ClQ) 0 og.(/)(tJ:5~ -c: fijffi...... 0 ~ro~:2:o&5 co :!::: 'U en ~ C>.c a.E<:",o<("=' ..cro.-L....,.Cro ~:J Q) Q> c..=: Q) .- en 0>- a.roI :l:'_","''''Q)_ 'E '" 0:2 Q) I !! .a..c....cn.c>.c :JVJU)::S+-':=:Q) (l)c(J)o.9c:E oro.~"Et5E5 :: .~ 0> co Q) .:: .. 0 0.- ~:o E > ~'i:: a.m:C::J 0 c: LLo..<(E~",()w o o -qo, t;:- ~ o E ~ 0> e a. 0> C "C g 'c o ::< C .2 m 0> '" ~ 1Y "0. '" o I 1ij C o '0, ~ 0: '" "5 o ~ E <D ?- M <0 .,. o ..;. o " o o ~ a. '" y ii ~ ~Q)C>'-"""""" Q)CJ)..cc:QOO :o~ :0-0 Om=::sC: Q) Et;<<J(3coco ..cc oc ou;CJ)'-E~~ -~ ~""UU) -oU(/)>"wo-w c: :J~L:.2t.- m..::::gID"Q.a> -0'-1....0.0.>0 a>2-e<e .... xmua. '+=:E:c: wIDo cO CC1""C..c:2"t:: 0).... 21->a. E~cn~ e 0.-- L.. Q) . nw "5"E ~ Co ~ "E 0":: co 0 Q) _ 0 a>.....t; Ero~ cOC/)"'O:J..c'- Dc: CEw -' -- .... CO E t):::Jui Q)o_ :J-OL-UU UQj '- -Q)Q)Q)offia. -"'(J)Ncc.... c c 0____ () c: 0> 0:0-022 ~2.~ "U:::J CC_C"'O ~ - - .-.- c'- '=():JCClmoro~ (.9 <( .~ .0 E E u E Cl l'lI 1a C us III :Jiij .. .- S:: (I)': .. - - .. ~ C C C C (]) (]) (]) (]) l'lI E E '" E '" E 0. t:: t::~ t::~ t:: ro ro 0 ro 0 ro Q) a. g.~ - g.~ .. a. :c (]) (]) Cl Cl c Cl c Cl 'ijj .2 (]) .2 (]) c 0) o):c; E o):c; E 0) 0 c .E::J t:: .E ::J t:: c Co .c co.. ro co.. ro 'c III c c"Oo. c"Oo. C Q) ro .!!!c(]) .!!leG) ro IX 0.. o..roCl o..roCl 0.. , ~ c 0 ~.~ 0 c. 0) .J!! ._~L.U "'0 0) C 0) 0>1: ro 0 Q) Q) .E :0 .E :J .E (])..c "'.Eo E ~ "C "0"0 =ro "0 "0 Q) m"-um......cQ)Q) ~ 0) ':; ~-c3:co(])'<:: .<:: 0>(ij::J .- -- "C...... Ol ro ..c 0 L.(Qi+-'.>. Ol Ol ......<::0 (])E(])=..c ..... ..... ..... (I) owu)._ c..c 0 c 0 c 0 C (])",=t:(])E::J~o (]) '0 (]) '0 (]) 0 ocrom..cOl-CO- 0 Ol 0 'i" 0 r:::roo.c-ooV)~ c , c c :;:: ro c ro c ro l'lI m- - V) 0 0 .. ::JQ. ucoQ)cQ)o= ::J ::J ::J c U)Q)5S-;;.cooOw'U "'"0 '" Q) w....c.-o +-':+::oQ)Q(/)C '" c .!!l E '--CU(/)$:E g c c.- ctl .- ro .9~ Q) B...J'o Q>CL..L.--..9__ .9:!: 'ii L."e.Q ui~::JUi Q) ~ L.."e ~ E ~ E 0,- =cQ>cC) 0,,- 0 ~ 0 ~ E "t: Q) Q) co nJ...... 0 C ro.t: Q) .C (]) .C (]) 0.. 0.:5 3:..c.oo 0 00..0.. a. 0.. 0- 0.. 0- >- >- >- >- "0 "0 "0 "0 ::J ::J ::J ::J .. - - .. Q) (j) (j) (j) (j) l:! ro ro ro ro :J "" "" "" "" 0 'c .c .c 'c (I) - ~ :J III III Q) :1!! c o :;:: l'lI Cl E :1!! (]) '<::"'"0 _::J(]) u> g.~ .!!1cE"g _ ~+:lL.......cro > C Q)...J L.O- +Jo+-'oQ)c ooQ)tJ).r:=.Q> coro~'i:"t:::2 CcroOQtn(])' 0__ t)cm_ U2E~2'-'(j) ::J C 0)-- t> Q) ..... .- .- Cl .<:: 0 .::ocoQ> .~""""Q) :!! E.<:: 0)0='0 o"Oro.~5.roL.. OCL..CQ)ClQ. ucooc..ccQ) cQ)-~""o..c rou-a,CL..cCO- 0>.!2.- Q) 15 u C> c a.-c.c:.D c.5 :O=O......rncog tllroo..c>'cC/),D .......c ~ 0 Q) O>oocoQ)-cco -... -ro:=W (ij c (; ~ C/) >..~ O>~""''''''o.Q)t::t:: c.- (]) "'" (]) (]) .. -- c."i::; Q) c a. a. '}I:;a.,-oroOO mCl.A'roo-~~ \.J ...........om..ca.a. . >. "'Cu)'"U-ciwolCU m ~ 2:!:cQ)'-co 3:(]) (]) ~~ ~~tllE~~~ ......roi~o_ ~ .~.~ :C)~~E~8 cc_o~~ ....cQ)+-'O 0.5+-''-0> ro Q).-o.....l....c m>o.... c=O~~"O C"O 0)0 0.- ._~~, ......eQ)u.S;-L- eo Q).:: Q) -c ~ ~ ~ 0..5 ..c::J m c c 0 o>c Q E 0"0:00.. 'j" Q) C (/J C .c: Q) co '- ~.!2w~~e ~IDme m ~'a0 ~~.Q;0oa mw ..:, ~.~ ..~_~ro ID (/) "0"'0 mID UJu.. \u (/) \U > ~~.-~IDe .E~BID "'0 ~e~w> ~=gS.~m ~Oe~ ~~B~UJ~w em ~O~ mCID~ gID~5c~m O~~oID~~ ~E~~ .-e~wm .- = e IDOCf)- ~aE 0 .<:: Uc.-~.-8 -~IDm CE ID~"'OO ,gEID~~2g ~';~E; ~~8~~B~ Cf) _.~mc IDmcg .eoo~-~c c~rooo..~ >~~ -- ro'" o C ~ >~ ~~Cf)~ID~~ 05-:5 ID~ "'Om~('lJ u._~Cf)~c~ ">-(])'<::o.(]);:::5r; c~l5Q) Q)m~Cf)-ID~o <..' ..... .;:: m m c ~ _.. >. _ ..... mm~~oo 0).......-:.- mCf) -me c C Cf)Cf) eWC/Jo O~~~O _ aC C-Q) =m~~ -IDa .-C>UJm .-.QcQ)mo .-"'Oa~ c~~C>~c C ~~ow>c ~ ~o mmm u._~.- ~('lJ.- 0_ ~2~Q) ~Q)~.5"'O"'Oo"'O M Cf) ID ro E ~ \U '.0 mID.:;: .. 0 ~......"'O m ~ - ID 1=~oo~~~ooon~Q) em ~u._ ~~ao~m.~~~o~~~~B~BE.5~~ ~~. ~ o E l" 0> e "- 0> I:: '1:: B '" o :;: I:: o '" m g :;; ]g '5. '" o I rn I:: o "5> " rt: m 'S " " E ~ '" '" .,. o " o ;;;: o o Sl ~. ii . . . ~ c C;).!!! ::3Cll ... .- (tI~ "'c en_ ~ Cll 0.. GI :E 'iij c o Co III GI ~ - e: Q) E t t1l a. Q) Cl 0> e: 'c e: t1l Il. .!! ::3 " GI .!: C) en e: o ~ Cll ... C GI E GI Q. E '0 Q)' ;l::e:_ 0>._ 0 0 .5; E'O Q) "0..0 c'o .- ::3 CO L... ::Jen a. .oQ)lQQ) CO..o :J..c .... 0- 0= Q) "- t1lEo (])..c Q) Q) g~~~ coa>-a> :J~o..c ~ Q) ~+-' ._ ._ L... O t1l () 0 - .... +-'.- Q) '-E..cg> o L........._ 'C Q) 0 0 a.. 0._ 0> GI o ... ::3 o en >, '0 ::J U5 t1l "" 'c GI ... ::3 III Cll GI :2 c o ~ Cl E :2 Q) ~ .r::,2 - .~ (; - '0'0 Q) e: (f) t1l ::J Q) Q)0l .ot1l >,"!5 e: 0 o Q) ro:;: .r::8.. en Q) (f) >, 0 ~ 0 e: o e: t1l -Q)e: ~ (T.I Q) Q)CEc a5 E'(ij OlQ)E >,e:'O o t1l e: e:.... t1l g;,0Q) ~ - 0 .. Q) e:'2: '-)'E~Q) c.9WQ)en - e: Q) E t t1l a. Q) Cl 0> e: 'c e: t1l Il. Q) .r:: - .... o ~ Q) .r:: - ~ .2 0> e: '0 t5 0lQ) , .~ e: e 00. >, '0 ::J U5 ro ~. 'c r.riE~'O Q)o:32 :2':: t::"E V) ca._ >, 0.- Q) co Q) Q) ~:;:'O.o ..cro""C_ ~Q)cro ooro~ . 'O..'l!- :2 Q) t1l Olll. V)""C'E:.~O OCI....""CO C3roroco.. e: 0..... O>:E-Bcl Q)>2:J~ .001-'0<( o e: COL...uiccO .r::o- 0 CJ) (1)0>.. oe:..... V)...... L..'- "- ~oro"Oo oea.~(/) o _~ ""Ccoro.....::J .- 0 0 g'Q>c-..c .-uQ)wm . . "'0 :3 "0 L....c I'-COo.(ii:J..... ,I, 0 e: Q) 0 0 ,-,...J._ It......c +-' - e: Q) E t Cll a. Q) Cl 0> e: 'c e: t1l 0:: Q) .r:: - .... o ~ Q) .r:: - ~ .2 0> e: '00 0lQ) , '- e: 0 oa >, '0 ::J - en ro :e e: 15::l _.!!1 ::J e: .r::::J en Q) ~~u) - _ en -t1lQ) ~:t::o (/) g. ~ eno>, Q).r:: 0 .~ Q) ~ ~~ (j) ~ > E Q) >'oE g.:: Q) Q)Q)~ m=== .E Q) E :;: ~~ 0 e: t1l E t1l 0 o.r::- .::+-'''''C en ~ ~ C Q) .- CQQ>_:J ,~ 0- m'- 0 Q) v(l)e:~ - e: Q) E t t1l a. Q) Cl 0> e: 'c e: t1l Il. - e: Q) E t t1l a. Q) Cl 0> e: 'c e: t1l Il. Q) .r:: - .... o ~ Q) .r:: - ~ .2 0> e: .-- 00 0lQ) , .~ e: e 00. '0 0> Q) e: '0'- Q) .- "'0 ..c >t1l - o ~ ~ L..C) Q) 0 a.ca cac::(...... Q)...... _<("'0 .nO 'U)LL~ mQ)~Q)""C'5 w 0 a...c C 0" ..cc:.=-coa> (J)roQ)..c_~- c:::J..c:!:::oa>:rl .Q ~ Q);: ro ,-.~ ~'-..cQ)rnroe ~Q)""'uocna. C..c L.... c:;:::l C a>+-'Oro::JoQ) Eo:::==ro:.;:;.s +-,.- a. c CO....... ~oEEe:JO 0';:: Q) 0 cD ~JE Cl a. a.() <( ~ = " o '0 _ tN ~ o E I!! 0> o n. 0> <:: .ll 'c: o ::;; <:: o 10 0> ~ ]j '0. ~ o I rn <:: o "0> " '" '" '5 " " E " ?- M '" g ..;. o <i' o o ~ 0. ::J >1 Ii >, '0 ::J - (I) ro "" 'c >, '0 ::J - (I) t1l "" 'c '0-= Q)'O 0 Q) '~CO..cC+-' . .0 r-Q)..c+-'(tJL...""C .- <O"'(JC/J oeo en...... <D tIJ.;::a. V) .- ,.- Q) +-' a.'- eoL... C\lLL-Ec Q) :;.e-~ c ffieQ)~..c Q)e:_ o'Oo....E._Q) ....... .....~ .-c= Q)O~ .-Q)Om - a. ~-~ Ex:+:; > U CO .- - +oJ = Q)ctJ CO Q) O-Q):::JID..... ..... C/) ..... ca 0 CT cn.g <l>-.;::l:; 0 t:<DCO .000.-__ ..c<( Q)L..:!::::: a>"'o:!::::: Q)""C0>2E caro~cn ~cn~5.~.~Q5 ..c ~ c:5 >-.~ a.Oro c.. a. {J)C>Q)~ 0.:5 . w....... 00> :5l1>2'.... Eroc~Q)a.c ro..c Q) (J) 0 c.Q L.. ""C n.u a.-Ern oOroRU)Q)t1lt1l 1:.9Q)U) .....L.-....... L.. O)cnc..... (0<(0>1;) "BOlO) co.-a> ..c'c c:5co '+=Q)U..c tJ) ._CO) '- .....L..Q)+-' +-,Q)E2~Eo 2m.=~ c(O""C1:,vea> Q.(ij:J C ~-<( $: CJ}'- U 0-;:;;0" =(f) ttiwc U~Q)Q) a. ___co -m~~ a. c: .....w:J Q) (/)1:0 Q)o:!:::::O->w .r::Een "<(.r::""EOOen .. EmQ)O ........co '-L...._ O>Q) _Q;~Q) .-.cO-nO) I .c 0 c ..c ,~ ..c '+- <(> :J a. a...c c>I-o::J+-,'-II-o wcacu__ ca -; c u;,!l ::I ca .... .- ca~ ....c Cf)_ ~ ca Do Gl :c 'iij c o C- UI Gl a:: - C Q) E t:: '" 0. Q) Ol_ OCC .- Q) g'~ E ._::1 t:: C lD '" C"Oo. '" C Q) 0.",0 ..! ::I ~ Gl .r:: o Cf) C o ;: ca .... C Gl E Gl C. E - C Q):>, Ol ::1..0 C O"Q)",Q) ._ rT>. Q) +-' ..c "O...nU)<o----,+-' <o.5.c'~- c: L.."O::la.co ~'S U) e (l)E "0 ,u.c >. a. Q) - c: c.t-o OCii co ro co "5 Q).!::: 0>"'0 Q.Q) 0 (,)...... c: L... cQ)--Q)Oo. "'.r::"S! E ~ Q) ::s....... ..J <D "-'I VJ"Ooa>.5-O cnc:c:""Cc(Q '0 co:.:::-u)C..c --~:t::::t:::.!2C/)ui ~EEEa.Q)c .QL..L..L...Q).....co J\Q)Q)Q)..c0_ u.. a. a. a.__ c a. CIl o ~ ::I o Cf) '" 0. I~ Q) C"O ::I 0 :2() ~ ::I UI ca Gl ~ C o ~ Cl E ~ Q)o<D~f.?;-d> :5(1):5occ::; L.. 1::J 0 +-':::1>.00 "'O..OO>()C >...c "0 6 :.c (ija>Q) Q)~ ::1:5> .:2~Q)' o >Qw ::J(J)..Qz'-Q)Q)o 00>- ~c "a.com .~(J)Q) f/) 0 f/) ~ 0:: ;.,:2 c:c;coc.......cw 8.5 ~roOco~ +-' ;::.f: ___ "-0 "0 "OroO"O"{""""~Q) 2 :5 Q5 0"- --- ~"o. (J) +-,.c I'n ("I') ::J 00 ~r---.o Q.Wc '0 -0' > '" C r-- 0 Q)~o>::JOl.O a. O'-"'f"C .n ..cwo co -Q)"'EQ)o..... ro-E -Q)cnz 0 .<:: cl- Q) w.8.Q >'0)== Q)a>o......cogE e>>g20.gcoo> T"""~caU; "0.5t:: T"""o>'::'c~Q)"OltI c.!> i:i5 ai 80 g-o ~ E ci. o (') co I E ai o (') co :>, '" "0 -c LL >- '" "0 C o :2 ~ o E ci. o (') co I E '" o o r-- ~ '" "0 C ::I CI) ~ '" C-o 0= o I "0_ Q) C ;j:::Q) .- E E C Q) ~ o.~ o ",C> .- Q) - '" tu) 0::" ~~ Q) oal ZLL :>, '" " ~ ::I - '" CI) "'''' .><- .... C OQ) ~E ot:: -- '" :Eo. ::I Q) 0.0 o~ '" ~ Q) 0 0..... C:>, '" 0 ::I C '" '" .~ a. ::l- oa> Q)O", .<::0", -......<:: 00. 02.5 -~Ol ti:.5 01::"0 'C Q)"5 a.()..o :>,:>'Q) 1::ctJCti $ ~" . U)Q)o:5 '" a> E ::I 0) ~ E 0 <D:5o(/) :5(1)00> _ or-- "'E"':>, '" e 0 g1 C~+-';> Ol~ .<:: .- c -;:;; 0> UJ Q) w._ 0- CI IE C> .2' E '" '>- (/) 0 L... L.:....... L.. .....- .........- "Oem__ Q) ::I ~ 0 o Q) en 0 .~ o_!:::;:o 0. ~~ 0(/)00. L...(/)-Q> Q,w(IJ.,C Q)o _ ..coco __CO+-,+-' co- ~ "u.~~Q) '1:""""000)0 II '0::::: L..._ 0 oe::::::: a. (/) ro . (/)(/) .><- ~c OQ) ~E ot:: ='" ..00. ::IQ) 0.0 o~ '" ~ Q) 0 0..... c:>, "'0 ::Ic (/)'" .!2 a. ::1- o Q) 0) 0 (/) .<::0", -......<:: 00. 02.5 -~O> <;:: .5 O"-t32 -- Q) -- o:()il ~~. i? o E ~ 0> e D- O> c: 't: .9 "c o ::;: c: o '" co 0> '" ~ "" J!! 'ii '" o :I: (ij c: o c;, '" a: co a '" E '" I- '" '" ... o '" ~ o o ~ ~. <i C ca a. ~ Q) C Q) C> .<:: 0):; .<:: 0 -CI) O>Ol Cr-- 0:>, '" '" J!l?: .<::.<:: 0l_2' =I - Q) C ~ 0 -- (/) 0 ,,-~ C 0 '" ~ 0. .>< Q) "'.<:: ~- Q)..... ,,0 .- Q) (/)0> =ro .. m +-' (\/-C , (/) 0 IC~ -- . . . ell 'tV c UsUl :::J"iii ... .- ra:: "'c 1/)- :>. 1:: ell 0. Gl jj Uj C o C- UI Gl 0:: '" ~- ~ C 00> ~E ut ='" ..co. :::J 0> ll..C o~ '" Gl :; .'tl Gl .c I.) I/) c o ~ J9 c CD E CD c. .E ~ 0> 0 u.... C>. '" I.) :::J C "'''' .!a a. :::J_ I.) 0> 0> 0 UI .<::0", -.....c Oll.. o 2.S -", urn \j:: .5 L..'- "'C ot- .- 0>'- o:oE CIl I.) .. :::J o I/) >. "0 :::J ii5 '" "" 'c CIl .. :::J UI ell CIl :!; C o i C) ~ :i --- m co m . .r::c:J~ +-,0"0_ :::J:.;::o-Q) o u....... 0- I/)"O~E m"'uc r--. CU >,C o.c ro(OCQ) ;.: ~o> ..c: 2.0 cnO>I>. .-"0 <t= ~ I .- 0> ~ >- '" '+-e"O~ o o.c- C :::J '" o 0- :;::;0.00 0_ C 0> .<:: '" ~"Ot::ro 0>",0'<:: C 0 c~ .- 0:: 0 (; 0> -;.: -Ero"'CU) <1> ~ S:C >'-o+-' .. e ~.c ~ MQ.'-t)- 'E",,,,<t= <.9_:2:0>.!!! UI ~- ~ C o 0> ~E ut ='" ..co. :::J 0> ll..C ....>. o C '" 0> ~ u.E c>. "'u :::J C "'''' .!:Q a. :::J_ u 0> 0 0> .<::o~ -.....<:: Oll.. o2.S: -", urn ~ .S: ,,-.- "0 ot- .- 0>'- o:oE >. "0 :::J ii5 '" E C 1:5 0> 'e- a. 0> .<:: - E o ~ C o "" U 0> C C 0"0 Ultl '" 0 ",0:: 0>", u- o 0 ",t o Cll.. "'0> 1:50 ., 0 c_ .. C voo> :i:()~ '" '" ~- ~ C o 0> ~E ut ='" ..co. :::J 0> ll..0 .c U '" 0> .... o 0> U C '" :::J VJ~ .!!l E 0> 00. -rn C ""-:0 0= "i:: ::J ll....c ~ C> , C') C> c:i 0:: o ~ u. o ~ "'.--'-. o>u. 0>:2: u.~ _f- o ~ '" '" 0.0> E 0> _u. -c C 0 ., .- E"iii a..2l O~ Qj:2: ~ E o~ .E ~'c ~~ u u 'o.~ o.~ "'f- Uj >'"0 . '" C Ill..'" ~~ ~ C o 0> ~E ut ='" ..co. :::J 0> ll..0 .<:: o '" 0> .... o 0> U C '" :::J (J)~ .!a E ~ ., 00. -rn C '-u 0- o\:: '5 ll....c >. "0 :::J ii5 '" "" 'c ...."'''' 0.,,,, en:;;_ -wo C >.., 0> "0 -- E :J e Ql-o. > '" 00>0> Ci.c: = E-.... '-.~ 0 0>",,,, ~ >'0 '" '" '" "0;':0. ~"O E '" "'.- ;':0_ o ~ """0 (]) . '" C '" <( O>ltI"'- Ql '<::f- 'f- (/) n Q) 0> C 0>'<:: L..o.c....... ro:;::;_c: ..c: 0 ._ U)IDc:"'O .= ~ 0 Q) ~2"U!E ,,>.cwc U?ro=~ID Ill..",..c:2 '" '" ~"E o 0> ~E ut -- '" 150. :::J ., ll..0 o~ '" Ql ~o 0.... C>. ltIu :::J C "'''' .!a a. .. :::J= U Q) Q) 0 '" .<::0", -.....<:: Oll.. o2.~ -", urn tt=.S: ot32 "i:: Q)'5 ll..O..c >. "0 :::J - (j) '" "" 'c o - Q) - -00 - o 0> 'e- a. Q) .<:: - E e .... "0 '" o 0:: o . - "0 0", to "'0:: Oltl -- U'C .,,,, "E2' f';-om IO:2: '" '" ~- ~c o Q) ~E ot ='" ..co. :::J 0> ll..0 >. C '" ~ .E >. 'Og Q) '" o 0._ c:::J- '" U Q) :::J U '" ",0 '" "'.....c .- 0 ll.. Ql Ql C .c +-,._ ~~rn +-'t;::.5 L..'- "'C ot_ -- Q)-- o:oE >. "0 :::J ii5 '" E C ...."'- o Q) ~ !!l ro'O' C ~ Q)>'o. E-g., Ql-.<:: >"'- 0.,.... 5..!: 0 E-'" '-.5 t5 Q) '" '" .<:: >. a. -",E {l ;.:.- "'-"'0= '" '" ;.: P Q)", <(- o - ....."'Cro~ "'C.<:: Q)",0.Q) ..2:!wID-E Q)c=c '- 0 .- ro:;::;c-o ..cOoo> CJ) Q) Q.t;:: L..(/):J:p .- L.. C ~2"OQ) -. CQ)"O co >,.- (/) .- ,ctI=ctlrn Ill.. ",..c '" '" '" ~- ~ C o Q) ~E ut ='" ..co. :::J Q) ll..0 >. C '" .. .E >. ....u o C Q) '" U 0._ c:::J- '" U 0> :::J U '" ",0 '" "'.....<:: .- oll.. Q) Q) C ..c +-,._ -;~cn +-' ij:: .S: L..'- "'0 ot- .- Q)'- o:oE ~ C> , C') C> c:i 0:: o ~ u. o ~ "'.--'-. Q)u. Ql:2: u.~ ...f- u~ '" '" 0.Q) Etf -c C 0 Q).- Ero 0..Q> o:=:: Q):2: ~ E O~ .E ~'c ~~ u u =lE a.", o.~ "'f- a; >'-0 . '" C Ill..", " o ~'" t;:N ~ o E '" c, o Q. 0> <= "<= .9 "c o ::< <= o '" '" 0> '" ~ g c. '" o I ro <= o "0, '" 0:: '" a '" E '" f- '" <0 ... <> .J- <> "<> <> N 0: :::J U Ii ell 'tV c UsUl :::J"iij ... "- ca:: ... c 1/)- . ~ ell 0. Gl jj "iii c o C- UI Gl 0:: '" '" ~- ~ C o 0> ~E ut =ro .ac. :::J 0> ll..0 Gl :; 'tl CD .c I.) I/) C o ~ ... c CIl E Gl C. E >. C ro ~ .E >. ....0 o C ~ 11_ :::J- cUO> ltIu", :::JO ro '" .<:: .!a '0 a... 0> 0> C :5 +-,.- o~(J) .....t;::.5 ot~ or: Q) ::Ii ll..()..c ~~. ;:; o E l'! 0> e n. 0> <= "<= .9 'c o ::< <= _2 1ii g :!E "" $ -5. '" o I ro c: o '0, '" 0:: '" "5 u '" E '" f- '" <0 ... <> .J- ~ <> o '" ~. Ii Gl ~ ::l o I/) >. "0 :::J (j) ro "" 'c ~ :::J UI ell Gl :!; C o ~ C) ~ :i '- 0>(:'0"02 '0.8 iO.2::>2ro "'0 en Q) . .c 15 a;"E 'ti) C Q):C 0 (]) en - .2>'5 = ro~'(ij'+- roO ro~E Q) fJ)~ !:!:......c:UJ..c.~~ '-co...... 0000>00 ca"'O't- ro 0.,2! -- ~ .. Ql c c 0 ooo.cn .c.~Q)..c.-ro t5.s ~ ~ 3: Q) ~-~ 02 .Q) Q) Q) ro cn~ ~ "6> ~ 0 ...... C O's....o~ c co c~ 0.1) Q) 5.~...... ,,-.Q :J w'U :J CD E Q) tf) g"roo E::>.E ~:a~ .c .!::: = ::: ~ ::Jo ~. 0 ~ "5 ......co.-roL- ()..n cr ~~;::cQ)r-- .sro(J)~Q) ......Q)......O-:=~ro __"- m..t:u.-.... - "Ow ..c...... Q):!:::.-!r....:J C Q) >'c ...... -0 '0'"0 .2 Q) o.Q c m 0 ""0 Q) I...."O._~ Q)...... 0 c::;::; (/) Q)Q)a.cocroE~:;::;co:JQ) (5 (.) Q) >.~ Q) Q) (.) C (.) $ .~ c ~~ ~ oEI-.~ Q)~ U) Q) Q) cn~"""o.9 ~O-O E ~-g:2 .na>(.) c.o _cn......w::J "OO>Ql-o >'roO>_ <.9 _~.()c._'U;!:::: C:S co Q) .. i5u- 5.. O>E1ii2()~ "'~'<::<{a 0.<:::2: rnO 0> ro - ~ (/)::> Q) ~E ~ ..c Q) Q) Q) >,W I~I--f;a.Erol-~E5..cU . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC.ST AFF REPORT.doc 17 . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO ELIMINATE THE Z2 OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080- 010 (PA04-0462) WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); WHEREAS, the Application 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; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on April 6, 2005, 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; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recornmending the City Council adopt a Resolution Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation and corresponding height restriction for a site located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approxirnately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, also known as Assessor's Parcel Nurnbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959- 080-007 through 959-080-010, attached as Exhibit "A", WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. R:IC U P\2004104-Q463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc 1 Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the . Application makes the following findings: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. B. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding area. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission for the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Application to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate the 22 Overlay designation and corresponding height restriction for a site located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, as shown on attached Exhibit "Au Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April 2005. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary . [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of April 2005 by the following vote of the Commission: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary . R\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC GPA RESOLUTlON.doc 2 . . . EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OS- _ (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) R:\C U P\2004\04'0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Drafl PC GPA RESOLUTION,doc 3 . . . RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE Z2 OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FROM THE GENERAL PLAN FOR A SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080- 010 (PA04-0462) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well as any adjacent areas which, in the judgment of the City, bears a relationship to its planning; and B. UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located north of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); C. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act; D. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; E. 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. 2005-_ , recommending City Council approval of an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and F. 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, 2005-_, recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment; and, G. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on . 2005 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and ,2005 and R:\C U P\2004\04'0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc 4 H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a . General Plan Amendment for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05- Section 2. following findings: Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. B. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding area. Section 3. Amendments to the General Plan Text. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate Z2 overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction for a site located on the north side Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, generally known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. Section 4. Severabilitv. 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. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of . 2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc 5 . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2005 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecul. Regional Hospita~Draft PC GPA RESOLUTION,doc 6 aTY OF TEMECULA Land Use Ele~en. Existing: Table 2.9 Direction for Future Soecific Plan Areas Proposed , Approximate S~ific Plan Location Kev Obiectives Anticioated Land Uses kr=e CITY of TEMECULA Specific Plan Along Highway 79 To achieve a comprehensively planned mixed-use Mixed- Use including Office, 2, 55.0 Area South, between development with compatible! complementary mixtures of Support Commercial, 2, 35.0 2,,2,:Z, Jedediah Smith Road office, support commercial, residential, 'and. services. 1he Residential, and Services; Open 2, 35.0 and Margarita Road project sball be limited in height to one or two stories and Space/Rec=tion. designed to be compatible with existing ranch style residential. The project should take advantage of the unique opportunity to incorporate open space resources into the design, scale, orientation of the development. The Gty recognizes that given the site confIguration and location that certain commercial recreation uses may be desirable including, but not limited to, bowling alleys, driv' es, and heahh clubs. Proposed: Table 2-9 Direction for Future S ecific Plan Areas Location Ke Ob'ectives CITY of TEMECULA To achieve a compreheru;ivelyplanned mixed-use development with compatible/complementary mixtures of office, support cormnercial, residential, and services. The project sball be limited in height to one or two stories_and design to be compatible with existing rnnch style residential The project should take advantage of the unique opportunity to incorporate open space resources into the design, scale, orientation of the development, The Gty recognizes that given the site configuration and location that certain commercial recreation uses may be desirable including, but not limited to, howling alleys, driving ranges, and health clubs, Antici ated Land Uses Specific Plan Area 21 and 23 Along Highway79 South, between Jedediah Smith Road and Margarita Road Mixed-Use including Office, Support Commercial, Residential, and Services; Open Space/Recreation. 21 55.0 Z3 35.0 . aTY OF TEMECULA . ':,.<}"',." . .... Legend for Specific PlmiO*erlay, Figurll Z-S (Continued) '.. ...' . APPROVED SPECIFIC PIAN AREAS . A. Winchester Mesa ': B. Rancho Spaandc;olintry aub .... .C. Warm Springs m .. D. Silverhawk E. Mountain View '."... F. Margarita Village G. Rancho Highlands H. Paloma del Sol' I. Vail Ranch ))'1 RRed.haw~ Hills' . .....,.......:,......'...'....;.....:.'.,."..,.....,'................... ,.' .m' . onpau~.. . >"';'. .. . ..- FUTURE SPECIFlC:1'LAN"AREAS1. .' K. Winches~r 1800' '. 1- Quinta J?O,Ligo M. Murrieqi Spriilg$#1 . ::lo. '. N. Borel A'h-riark .' . o. Cro~'V:116yVnfi\ge . P. HoFSprings Village . '0. JohnsonRanch Rc Roripaugh 800 S. Winchester Hills . '" T. Winchester Meadows Business}iark U. Temccula Regional Ceq!Cr V. CamposVerdes . W. Old Town., X. Unnlimed Specific PliUl" Y. . Unnamed Specific Platl, Z,:Z,:4. Unnamed Spe<#ic Plan ... AA. Murdy Ranch" . .... . Land Use Element " .LoCATION, . " . -Environmental StUify Area 'Environmental Study Area EnvironlIlental Study Area Sphere of Influence Sphere of Influence qity of Temecula Gity l;>f Temecula ..' . City of Terilecula , ., . 'J,Sphere. OfInflUClllce, .. :','<', '.. ..':' ....., ,.~.,,'".~~~#e;~face ......, LOCATION .'. ..... . '.'Sphereof Influence Sp~J:>f InfluenCe .'.;~phCri:of influenCe ,.Spli~re of Infhienc::e ... . ,SBhere:'oflnflu6htf " , ' c~_::" ~. /' -, r: .' ' , EnVironmental Study Area' . . Sp,h6r6of}lhflueI1Ce" . . Sphere of Influence/ . ~trof.Temccula . Cityqf'Tefuepula . '. City.tif TemecU)a: ~itt'dt Temeciila"'.-, CitYcifTeQJcculay) . . gity 9t TeiP~i(": ., " City .of Teriiccula} ,it ,"CitY of Tem~ll;;ypF ..!(:ityofTem~la;f;.-"'. ,. -'CityofiTem~la . ")..i}Ji" . . ..",' ','. 1 ',.' ,'. The IIl/lMS of the FUt"rt: Specific PIim Areas an subject to cirtmge; " 1 ._;;0. P."" 2-36. - . .. ~; CITY OF lEMECULA LatJd Use Element :-. . . ,'. ';,..,,:. ~,,,. ~.-.., '.t... , ~-. ': ;.. Legend for Specific PJari. OtulllY: Figure 2-5 (Continued). . .' . . APPROVED SPECIFIC plAN A.RFAs A. Winchester Mesa: . .' B. Rancho- Spa and Q>>IDtry Qub .c. Warm Springs .'.' -, ...... '. D. Silverhawk E. Mountain View . '" '. '. F. Margarita Village ...., G. Rancho Highlands' .' H. Paloma del Sol I. Vail Ranch ' .. .. . .,h, ~:~~~~HillS>.:.,.::,,;~f~~Z\:"L.4;;"~:..."... FUI'URE SPECIFlC:J>LANAREAS1~.' .0' K. Winche$~r 1800 . .' .. L. Quinta pci):..a&O '.' .' ...... M. Murriel{i Spriiim;ftl'. . ~i ....,. . :1, .~, :;'.... N. Borel Airpark>: '..;' .ji. . O. Crown ViiUeyVilfage ?\__ . P. HorSprings Village: '., "Q. JohnsonRanch . R; Roripaugh 800 -. .' .'."n' .' .. :LOCATION,.' ..... Environmental StUdy Area 'Environmental Study Area ;EnvironrtJental StudyAIea Sphere of Influence Sphere of Influence . Gitr of Temecula ;." '.' ... ...Citr 9f TCUl~la .' ..', :.City of Temeeula . ",;;k.,:" \,::~2~,,,.~~;:=:. . .", . .'"LOCATION ':;' ..... ..SPl1eteof Irifluence . . . ".J. '.. }~p~~:pf Influence . .;'~' '.,.%," .~phere.of Influence .' ."';;;iiJi~ii~'~,;: . Sji,Ii~Cif;lDfJuenCe .. ..' ..' . '~phere Qflnfluencel .'. pty:ofTemecula " . .~' 'i . . City.qtTem~ila. . . CityJifTemecwa:. 'G:itf,~ot TemeeUla',;:,/ g:~;i~:::~i1j'>' " '.Ci"'of Teniecula'" . '. .,.' .,. ~!,! - -" /~,/. ; ..:~}i::,~ . . ,Ci'" .of Tem~a;;.cJ2.:;. '. "J .~.. d, ,\;:<_~.'. ".' ',CitrofTen1eeulai\';4.' ':'.:;-"City'ovTerii~I' .. \:j~:J.~_:' . S. Winchester Hills , .: T. Winchester Meadows BUSuless,:ParlC U. TeIilecula Regional CeJiJCt . " .,~. . V. CamposVerdes ;~ . W. Old Town . '.:~ X. Unnamed Specific Pl~' Y. Unnamed Specific Pl~:~.', .-.., '> ~. .~. Unnamed Speciij"c PUiD. ..' M. Murdy Ranch:~ . -....-.-;:;:.. .- ", .;.~~..: .., .'. .~:. . ..;., . . ....'~. . -.\ b. .' -! .- 1 _ --: ' " ': . . The "'1lIlU of the Future SpecifIC Plan Anas are subject to c1Umg~ .": .}, ..".~ "." .,., -,....." Pa~ 2-36. . . .... .'.".' 1 ; . ; . J I i J i I i j I I I i '.1 ] , .1 i , i . 1. ., ~. SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY .~.: . . ..U1_ tlO iik'~~i?1 Approved specific Plan ~v::~~ Areas ..........u..... ~ Proposed Specific Plan ~ Areas NOIt: See -.. ctSpoCir.. PIOn AJ:ea on foI.~... AA . ',-,: ~ ..\ ) . . : . . ': i .."';,,." ". .c', "......."i""^'_ .'.... '1_. ". ';~-.:' .. ,-, . " e ":{ ~ -. ~ - ~:~::~('r".. iee City of TEMECULA General Plan Program i' i ! ~u iE . . . if [!J" .&B' . . THE It . ..... . . PLAN.. NlNG !~ '. ' CENTER . FIGURE 2-5 '9) EllSii...... .... '". '.W ,';.":.'. " , ~.r.l~,\....u:<lC YLAN UYhKLAY ", - ..;.............- .......--.' ",:;, .., Approved Specific Plan Areas Proposed Specific Plan Areas . . " tlote;Scc ..1II...rSpoillic Plio. 11-.... r~., pi'" o . . .~ ~ j ) ~ ....n'. "tl ". . J "', . ~.,:...,. . ~, -(,", ..... .........". ';" ~.: " -i"t. ..... ,'.-. ',," . . :,.~ ...., ";'-,: >-!. .~._;.~.?~ ";'f" ..'.i ." . ~: 'r: ,~~~'~'tP". , ..~1 '., .;......- ":<;j{". ". '.,' ~ -.. . ~ "'Jl. l' h e C i t Y 0 f fEMECULA Jeneral Plan Proetam !I . . . . . ". If '. .' . it' [!J'eB THE ir. , ... .PLANNlNG of '. ." .' CENTER . FIGURE 2-5 . ;. i' i ! ',. ., j- , I ; . I j i I I ...... ; , , e . . . ATTACHMENT NO.4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ (ZONE CHANGE) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc 18 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD" AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080- 010 (PA04-0462) . WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and P A04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s), 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080- 010 and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines ("Project"). WHEREAS, the Application 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; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on April 6, 2005, 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; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and Resolution No. 2005- recommending the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended the City Council approve the Project subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approve a zone change and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.230, including the PDO-9 text and development standards; . WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the Project, and certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted the Mitigation R:\C U Pl2004\04-0463 Temecul. Regional Hospila~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION,doc 1 WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. . NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA04-0462 hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map. The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan Amendment, the site is physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in this area, and the proposed zone change would further the City's long-term economic development goals. B. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the diversity of uses desired in the General plan and will create a balanced community with additional public services available to the community. Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 05-_ changing the zoning designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-B) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 including the PDO text and development standards in the form attached to this resolution as . Exhibit A. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 6th day of April 2005. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] . R:IC U Pl2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hosplta~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION,doc 2 . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby that the PC Resolution No. 2005- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of April 2005, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:IC U P\2004104,0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc 3 . . . EXHIBIT A PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 05_ (ZONE CHANGE) R:\C U P\2004\04,0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc 4 . . . ORDINANCE NO. 05-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (PA04-0462). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of T emecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0264, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and PA04-0571; Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located north of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); , B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by law, including the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; D. 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. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment; E. 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. 2005-, recommending that the City Council approve a zone change to amend the land use designation from Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206, including the PDO text and development standards for property generally located north of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010; F. On ,2005 and 2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters; R:IC U P\2004104.0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION,doc 5 G. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 05-_; . H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a General Plan Amendment for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05- /. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecuia approved a Zone Change for the Project when it approved Ordinance No. 05- . as described in attachment A; Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings. A. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use designation for the General Plan and the related General Plan text amendment. The PDO text, as proposed is also consistent with the General Plan and related General Plan Amendment Section 3. Severabilitv. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 4. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this . Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this _ day of _, 2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] . R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc 6 . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 05-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _ day of , 2005 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _ day of , 2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk " R:IC U P\2004104-0463 T emecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc 7 ... . . ... : ...::::... . . . .. Existing Zoning ^ ^ ^ ^ ... ^ ... ... ... ... ^ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ^ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ^ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 300 , o 300 600 Feel 00 r:\gis\kelli\arcviewprojects\hospital zoningJ>do9 exist.apr Proposed Zoning 300 , o 300 600 Feet . . . ... ^ ^ .. ^ ... ^ ^ ... ... ... ... ... .............................. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ^ ... ... ^ ... ^ ... ^ ^ ... ^ ... ... ^ ^ ... ... ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ... ... ^ ^ ^ ... ^ ... ... ... ^ ^ r.\gislkelli\arcviewprojectslhospital zonlllQ..Jld09.apr . Proposed DRAFT T emecula Hospital Planned Overlay District (PD0-9) . Submitted to the City of Temecula By: Universal Health Services, Inc. 367 South Gulph Road King ofProssia PA 19406-0958 Contacts: Pat Brietigam (UHS, Inc.) 702-562-8542 David Prusha (HKS, Inc.) 214-969-5599 April 6, 2005 . TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT DRAFT . 17.22.200 Title Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 shall be known as "PDO-9" (Temecula Hospital Planned Overlay District). 17.22.202 PURPOSE AND INTENT. The Temecula Hospital planned development overlay district is intended to provide for design flexibility with regards to the building height of hospital projects. Other aspects of this PDO will be consistent with the land use designations that are described in the land use element of the Temecula general plan. 17.22.204 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES. Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.206, the following rules and regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area: 1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to any development in a Professional Office zoning district that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. 2. The Citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. . 3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in effect at the time the application is deemed complete. 4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time the application is deemed complete. 17.22.206 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The development standards set forth in Chapter 17.08 apply to this PDO with the exception of the following modification to allowable building heights. The maximum allowable building heights, as defined in Chapter 17.34 for hospital buildings in the Temecula Hospital PDO District shall be limited as follows: No more than 30% of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this PDO, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines the roof area. . Chapter 17.22 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\PC-STAFFREPORT.doc 19 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0463, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELIPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES," LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959- 080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 . WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080- 010 and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines ("Project"). WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan) was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the timely manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan) on April 6, 2005, 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; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment; and Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approve a Zone Change; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the City Council approve PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan); . R:\C V P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 1 WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this resolution have occurred. . NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA . DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and '~ City which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns; (Goal 8)" The proposed project provides a regional use that needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, . noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state . highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also R:\C U P\2004\Q4-04-63 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 2 . . . reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the' state highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than Jil from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site is designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 316 bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels. Section 3. FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.01 O.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of T emecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Drafl PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 3 and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the General Plan. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission, hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 316 bed hospital facility and a helipad; and a Development Plan to construct a for to construct a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 6th day of April 2005. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2005-_ was dul~ and regularly adopted b~ the Plannin.g Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 day of Apnl 2005, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc 4 . . . . . . EXHIBIT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. OS- _ (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) R:\C U Pl2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 5 . RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0463, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELIPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES," LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: . A. Universal Health Services, Inc, filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; PA04-0571, 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 and an Initial Study was prepared in accord with CEQA Guidelines 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 Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; D. 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. 2005- recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval of a Zone Change; . E. 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. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 6 F. On , 2005 and 2005, the City . Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. G. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 05-_; approving a General Plan Amendment, and Resolution No. 05-_; approving a Zone Change, H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05- Section 2. FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" '~ City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and ''A City . which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns. (Goal 8)" The proposed project provides a regional use that needed in the community and. surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared, . which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc 7 . . . noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than !4 from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site is designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320 bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320 bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 TemeculaRegional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc B Section 3. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of a . Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of T emecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the General Plan. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Application for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad; and Development Plan to construct 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, . attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of ,2005 Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 9 . . . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the lh day of ,2005, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 10 . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit establishing a 320-bed hospital facility approximately 408,160 square feet and a helipad within a related Development Plan (PA04- 0463) located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 Office DIF: TUMF: Service MSHCP: Commercial Approval Date: April 6, 2005 April 6, 2007 Expiration Date: WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Planning Department 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a check or money order made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. 2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc II GENERAL REQUIREMENTS . Planning Department 3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest ' of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 4. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. . 6. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated June 30, 2004, (attached) on file with the Planning Department, unless superceded by these conditions of approval. 7. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 8. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the Aviation Division of Caltrans and the Federal Aviation Administration, if required, to operate the proposed helipad. All construction and operational requirements of Caltrans and the Federal Aviation Administration shall be complied with. The applicant shall provide a copy of these agencies approval documents to the Planning Director within 30 days of their approval action. 9. The applicant shall submit to the City of Temecula Planning Department an approved hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. 10. The flight path for all helicopter traffic arriving and departing the project site shall be limited to the Highway 79 South corridor and commercial areas, unless it is determined . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Resa w CofA.doc 12 . . . unsafe due to weather conditions. Flights over residential areas shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 11. All emergency vehicles shall turn off sirens no less than one quarter of a mile from the project site. 12. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Temecula Hospital and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program as attached. Police Department 13. All exterior lighting surrounding the project site should be energy-saving and minimized after 11 :00 PM to comply with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements. 14. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. 15. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 16. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings shall be removed or painted over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department immediately so a report can be taken. 17. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 18. Any public telephones located on the exterior of this facility should be placed in a well- lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of this facility. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature Date Applicant Printed Name R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 13 . . . EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Development Plan) Project Description: A Development Plan to construct a 320-bed hospital facility, approximately 408,160 square feet in size, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 MSHCP: DIF: Commercial Office TUMF: Service Approval Date: April 6, 2005 April 6, 2007 Expiration Date: WITHIN 48 HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL Planning Department Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 1. The applicanVdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a check or money order made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicanVdeveloper has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 14 2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for their files. WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE OF THE PROJECT, THE APPLICANT SHAll SUBMIT THE FOllOWING: 3. The applicant shall submit seven (7) complete sets of final approved plans to the Planning Department with the following revisions shown on the plans. Planning staff will stamp these plans as approved for distribution to each department and the applicant. The Landscape plan shall be revised as follows: a. The applicant shall provide vines on the screening wall at the loading dock area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. b. The landscape plan shall provide shrubs, vines and/or other acceptable screening methods to screen the oxygen storage container in the loading dock area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show final color and finish details for all decorative hardscape throughout the project site. Decorative hardscape shall be provided at all primary building entrances and outdoor gathering areas (including the hospital, medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center). d. A minimum of one broad canopy type tree shall be provided per every 4 parking spaces. The tree shall be provided in close proximity to the parking spaces it is to shade. e. One landscape finger shall be provided per 10 parking spaces. The interior finger planting width shall be a minimum of 5' wide with the length equal to the adjoining parking space. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5' width. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree with surrounding groundcover or shrubs or both. The grading plans shall be revised as necessary to reflect this requirement. 5. The elevations for all buildings shall be revised in a manner that all exterior ladders are screened from the public view of Highway 79 South. 4. 6. The applicant shall submit a separate plan, entitled outdoor furniture detail plan, showing details of all outdoor furniture, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Outdoor furniture shall be decorative and of high quality appearance. 7. The applicant shall provide a detailed elevation drawing of the water and boulder feature at the main entrance, near the porte-cochere. Said feature shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. 8. The applicant shall submit cross section verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 9. The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and structures, excluding trash enclosures. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Tcmecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 15 . . . . 10. Trash enclosures shall be shown the site plan, landscape plan and elevations and shall comply with the following: a. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. b. All trash enclosures shall blend with the architecture of the overall center and include a decorative roof type feature as approved by the Director of Planning. c. Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide shrubs and wall vines on 3 sides of enclosures as required to provide screening. 11. The elevations shall be revised to show decorative lighting fixtures at the primary entry of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Details of all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting and wall mounted lighting shall be provided on the plans. 12. The Applicant shall revise the site plan and provide a detailed elevation drawing to show a decorative fence no less than four feet in height around the helipad, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Said fence shall be constructed in a manner that deflects horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface of the area remain obstruction free, per Section 171 0.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT . Planning Department 13. . The grading plan shall include the following notes: a. "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." b. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 16 c. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. d. 14. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological! archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/ archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall provide written verification that services for on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring has been contracted during all phases of earthmoving activities. 15. The Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 16. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre-construction agreement/treatment plan to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 17. The grading plan shall be revised to include the following: a. Earth berms as required along the northern property lines and along Highway 79 South as discussed in these conditions of approval. b. A note on the plans indicating all areas not proposed for development within 100 days shall be tufted, seeded and irrigated for soil and dust erosion. c. Show the 5-foot landscape dimension for all parking islands, including the 1-foot concrete landing strip (7 feet total width). One parking island is required per ten (10) parking spaces. R:\C U P\2004\Q4-04-63 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CoCA-doc 17 . . . . Public Works Department 18. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or property owner. 19. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 20. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. 21. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 22. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction. 25. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 23. . 24. 26. . NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction-phase and post- construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction- phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction Activities. Post-construction measures shall be required of all Priority Development Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include a combination of structural and non-structural onsite source and treatment control BMPs to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff year-round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction-phase and post-construction R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc 18 BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the . approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term maintenance of all structural post-construction BMP's. 27. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 28. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 29. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 30. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for of/- site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 31. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. . 32. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone X. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Developer shall design the following features into the approved construction plans, or submit the appropriate information as required below. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning Department 33. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CoCA.doc 19 . 34. 35. . . Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved conceptual landscape plans, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Consistency Check fee shall be paid (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal of construction plans). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. One (1) copy of an agronomic soils report. d. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). e. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). f. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the properly. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. The final construction landscape plan shall include the following: a. A calculation indicating the percentage of the site that is to be landscaped shall be provided on the construction landscape plans. The applicant shall insure that minimum required code percentages for landscaping are provided to meet the specific zone requirements. b. The applicant shall field verify adjacent existing street plantings and coordinate proposed plantings to be compatible as approved by the Director of Planning. c. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. d. Street trees shall be provided along all streets at the rate of one per every 30' of street frontage. e. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily tufted, seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. A note on the grading plan and landscape plan shall be provided. f. A minimum 5' width planting area shall be provided at the ends of all parking rows. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5' width. The planter length shall be equal to the adjoining parking space. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground covers. g. Accent trees (minimum 36" box size) shall be provided at entries to parking areas in order to define the entry and provide a focal point. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & OP Reso w CofA.doc 20 h. Indian Tribe, Faurei varieties shall be provided for Crape Myrtle. . i. Additional trees shall be added on the north, east and west sides of building MOB #2. j. A combination of large (no less than 24-inch box) Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees (or other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern perimeter of the project to screen off-site views of the development as approved by the Director of Planning. k. A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent to the residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24" and 36" box) screen trees to screen the view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare from the project site, subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A cross section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans verifying the buffer area. I. The landscaped area along Highway 79 South shall include a meandering berm with large shrubs to provide additional screening of the parking lot. The applicant shall provide a combination of shrub plantings and earth berms that can be maintained at a minimum height of 3' around all parking areas to screen parking from off-site views. m. All areas not designed for buildings, parking, driveways or other useable features shall be landscaped, unless approved by the Director of Planning. The area along the eastern property line, adjacent to the access driveway shall be landscaped, unless it is determined critical habitat not to be disturbed. . 36. The final construction plans shall include a photometries plan showing foot-candle illumination in the parking lot, driveways, drive aisles, pedestrian paths of travel, building entrances and at property lines. A minimum of one-footcandle illumination shall be maintained throughout the site and a minimum of two foot-candle illumination shall be provided at primary building entrances. 37. The final construction plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, be directed down and fully shielded. Lighting onto adjacent properties shall be limited to the greatest extent possible. 38. Final Construction plans shall provide decorative lighting fixtures shall be provided at the primary entry of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Final construction plans shall provide details of all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting, parking lot lighting and wall mounted lighting. 39. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan for the helipad facility. 40. The split rail fencing for the equestrian trail proposed along the northern property lines, adjacent to the residences shall be extended from the current location to the western edge of the property line. Said fence shall a continuous fence beginning from the secondary driveway at DePortola to the western property line. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 21 . 41. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 42. All exterior wall mounted ladders (for all buildings) shall be located in a manner that they are not visible from Highway 79 South. Public Works Department 43. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of T emecula Standard No. 207 A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400, 401 and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. . 44. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 45. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 46. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. '47. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. . Building Department The Conditions of Approval herein (Building Department) are not applicable to the projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California (OSHPOD). These conditions are applicable to the construction documents for projects, specifically the medical office buildings that are within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department. R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 22 48. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. . 49. A complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 50. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 51. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 52. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,1998) 53. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 54. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. . 55. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 56. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 57. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 58. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 59. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. 60. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Community Services Department 61. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 62. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting whichever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an . R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Ternecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w Cof A.doc 23 . . . approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of arterial street lighting on Hwy 79 South into the TCSD maintenance program Fire Department 63. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 64. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 241-4.1). PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUilDING PERMIT IN PHASE I - (A HO-bed hospital with 80,000 square feet of medical office space), THE FOllOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED Public Works Department 65. Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 66. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works a. Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RIW) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). i. Westbound a. Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long b. Provide three (3) thru lanes c. Provide one(1) left turn lane ii. Eastbound a. Provide two (2) left turn lanes b. Provide two (2) thru lanes and c. Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground. iii. R:\C U NOO4\044l463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 24 b. iv. The traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way shall be modified to allow a full movement intersection. Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle ii. Southbound (exiting site) a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide c. Half-street improvements of De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial - 88' R/W) along property frontage plus taper to include installation of pavement, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) i. Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap. 67. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Half-street improvements of Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) i. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement Private (28 foot wide) ingress/egress road from Dona Lynora to De Portola Road to include installation of paving and curb as shown on the approved site plan. b. PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE COMPLETED Fire Department 68. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 69. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4). PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE II - (Expand to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space), THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CafA.doc 25 . . . . Public Works Department 70. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works a. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' RNJ) to be improved with additional paving to allow for two through lanes and a center turn lane. b. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road to include paving, curb, gutter, street lights, over crossing of drainage channel, and utilities. PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER Planning Department 71. The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of each building for Planning Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. Building Department 72. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY . Planning Department 73. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 74. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit. 75. Performance securities (Maintenance bond), in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas and the Right-of-Way for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. . 76. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined the initial study, under cultural resources. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 26 Police Department . 77. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 78. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. Fire Department 79. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) 80. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 81. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1). 82. This development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1). 83. Blue Reflective Markers shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3) . 84. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 901.4.4). 85. Based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9). 86. Based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10). 87. All locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC sec 902). . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc 27 . . . 88. A "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser door (CFC 902.4). 89. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF PHASE I PHASE I - a 170-bed hospital with 80,000 square foot medical office space Public Works Department 90. The following improvements shall be constructed and operational: a. Highway 79 South i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way. a) Roadway improvements b) Westbound i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long , ii) Provide three (3) thru lanes iii) Provide one(1) left turn lane Eastbound c) i) Provide two (2) left turn lanes ii) Provide two (2) thru lanes and iii) Provide one (1) shared thrulright lane 91. Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South a. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle b. Southbound (exiting site) i. Provide two (2) left turn lanes ii. Provide a 20 foot wide shared thrulright turn lane c. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide 92. Half-street improvements of De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial - 88' R1W) along property frontage plus taper to include installation of pavement, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). a. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 28 93. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Half-street improvements of Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) i. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement b. Private (28 foot wide) ingress/egress road from Dona Lynora to De Portola Road to include installation of paving and curb as shown on the approved site plan. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF PHASE II PHASE II - Expand to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space. Public Works Department 94. The following improvements shall be constructed and operational: a. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) to be improved with additional paving to allow for two through lanes and a center turn lane. b. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road to include paving, curb, gutter, street lights, over crossing of drainage channel, and utilities. 95. As deem'ed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written dearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 96. All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 97. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Planning Department 98. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any R:\C U N.004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CoCA.doc 29 . . . . 99. agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense (Planning Department). The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. 100. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as attached. 102. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The Director of Pianning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 101. . 103. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan, contained on file with the Planning Department. 104. This development Plan may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.05.010 of the City's Development Code. 105. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan elevations and landscape plans contained on file with the Planning Department. 106. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. . Material Stucco Color NO.1: Stucco Color No.2: Tile Base: Aluminum Panel: Ceramic Roof Tile: Tinted Glass: Window Frame: Color Senergy, Parchment, # 342 Senergy, Walden, # 3104 Daltile, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red CS51 Centria, 9910 L T Seawolf Monier Lifetile, Terra Cotta Flashed Viracon, Bronze VE 4-2M Kawneer, Medium Bronze Kynar 500 Fluorocarbon R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA-doc 30 107. The condition of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, . materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staff prior to approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish, technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 108. All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A 3' clear zone shall be provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities shall not look like an after-thought. Planting beds shall be designed around utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and the applicant shall insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 109. The applicant shall insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities, adjacent site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines (Planning Department). 110. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be submitted for review and approval for the project site. 111. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 112. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved (Conceptual Landscape Plan) . contained on file with the Planning Department. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 113. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape Design) are required to be met. Police Department 114. Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department immediately so a report can be taken. 115. Crime Prevention: Any business desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department. 116. Public Telephones: Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building should be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the building. . R:\C U P\2004\04-04-63 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc 31 . . . 117. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at a height of no more than three feet (3') or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows. a. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 118. Lighting: All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements. 119. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. Building Department 120. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 121. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays Community Services Department 122. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 123. All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a regular solid waste container. 124. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways, perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting. 125. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. Fire Department 126. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3850 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CoCA.doc 32 automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire . Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A). 127. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B). 128. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. On site fire hydrants are required for this project (CFC 903.2). 129. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2). 130. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and . approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105). 131. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. This condition only applies if any manual or electronic gate is proposed or conditioned (CFC 902.4). 132. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the City; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II-E). OUTSIDE AGENCIES 133. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 7,2004 from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. 134. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 24, 2004 from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 135. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 21, 2004 from the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). 136. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 12, 2004 from the Rancho . California Water District. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc 33 . . . By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Date Applicant's Signature Applicant's Printed Name R:\C U NOO4\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc 34 ~~ . COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE . COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH July 7, 2004 mlli' <~ n \\1 i,~ ~ iil J' ,. ",n04 " L.~ v 'iI L..J' Ii! bJ City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Dan Long By - RE: Plot Plan No. P A04-0462 & P A04-0463 Dear Mr. Long: Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 to construct Temecula Regional Hospital and has no objections. Water and sewer services should be available in this area, although we have not in receipt of any infonnation concerning those services. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE REQUIRED: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. . b) Any food establishments, (including vending machines), shall require three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Unifonn Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330. c) Any hazardous materials handling or storage shall require a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955- 5055) Sincerely, Sam Martinez, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department ofEnvironmentaI Health clearance. cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials . local Enlorcement Agency. P.O, Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502.1280 . (909) 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor. Riverside, CA 92501 :.and Use and W.t... Engineering' P.O, Box 1206. Riverside. CA 92502.1206 . (9091955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4080 Lemon SIre€L 2nd Roor, Riverside. CA 92501 WAKliliN V. WILLlAM~ General Manager-Chief Engineer 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.955,1200 909.788.9965 FAX 51180.1 . RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONfR AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST rEaglEuWrEW 'U JUL 2 8 2004 & City ofTemecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033 Attention: ~ \...ot-lq Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: fA ()'!~()'fIoZ. ~ p.A- O'/--o<l(,.,J The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard rep<?rts for such cases. Distiict comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of s~cific Interest to the District Including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which, could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addltion,- information of a general nature is provided. .. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: . This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional Interest proposed. -X- This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownershlll of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check' and insp~ction will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be reqUired. , This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be conSidered regional in nature andlor a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such faCilities on wnllen request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project is located within the limits of the District's Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted: applicable fees shoUld be pard by cashier's check or money order only to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of building or grading permits whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of Iheactual permit. By . GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESl llermit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined thal.the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If thi~ project invl;>lves a Fedel!l' Emergenc;y Managem!lnt Agency (FEMAl mapped flo!>d plain, .then the City should reqUire llie applicant to prOVide all studies calculations, plans and' ofher Information re~Ulred to meel FEMA re~uirements, and should further require thal the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this projectj' the City should require Ihe applicant 10 obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Califomia Department 0 Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or, written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these reqUirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of tfle Corps 404 permit. X ~ ~r;;.J, ?P"l4-\IT Stml.L- Il~ - /l~11'rltJ€t> fOI2.. MJ{ ..JDp..1'- Wrrl!-lN i(tlG 1:>1.S~ C.r \4"'t<<-W- ""I<'f 'lZ--..J rrtt DI~ c..r f"1'<<.I L.I Tl FS. -rr:; M~C-'M..,.. ~'- l--\.rJ~-I c:A-o.-I Very truly yours, /M;;4 ARTURO DIAZ Senior Civil Engineer Date: ,7f4.Y..21 ;7aJ{' . . . . ,A ',-- ,~ - July 21, 2004 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside. CA 92517.1968' Phone: (909) 565-5000 Fax: (909) 565-5001 Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner Planning Dept., City ofTemecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: P04-0462 and PA04-o463 - Temecula Hospital- Comments from RTA Dear Mr: Long: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,000 sq ft medical complex at Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's internal Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility options for this project. To encourage and enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTA recommends the site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features: · A paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant transit bus stop with a 220 ft-Iong tumout configura- tion capable of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed along the N side of SR 79, just west of the primary hospital entrance. The bus stop should incorporate a paved passenger waiting area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters. '. Information note: Sufficient right-of-way appears available for this turnout without significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure installations. .RTA staff is also recommending designation on the plans of an additional specified clear path of travel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital building. · RTA staff also advises that the project proponents work with the City to install two new passenger shelters at the new bus stop that are complimentary to the hospital's design and architectural themes. F:ldatalPlanninglMikeMlWordlDev ReviewlTemeculal2004lRTA Ltrhd - Temec Hosp.doc '-:1IrA Rlverslcle Transit AgencJ July 21, 2004 . PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To: From: Anne Palatino, Director of Planning Michael McCoy, Senior Planner ~ City of Temecula, Cases PA04-o462 & -0463: Plot Plan review and CUP for 535,000 sq ft of hospital and medical-related facilities, N of State Route (SR) 79 and W of Margarita Rd; Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Comments Bus routes involved: Existing Route 24 and future bus routes Subject: Summary: Universal Health Care Services Inc proposes a site plan and conditional use permit for the Temecula Hospital project, 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35 now vacant acres V. mile west of the SR79-Margarita Rd intersection in a rapidly expanding commercial district of Temecula. This will be the first full-facility medical institution in Southwest Riverside County and will be a distinct asset to the community, challenging planners and engineers to provide a robust suite of mobility options for access to it The project includes the following components: · 176-bed, 6-story hospital building, including Emergency admittance · A 5-story expansion of the hospital · Two multi-story medical office buildings . Cancer center . Fitness center . 1280 parking spaces . The site plan's perimeter and interior circulation patterns are very good, with primary access provided directly off a signalized intersection at SR 79 and Country Glen Wy. The hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drive-thru loop suitable for van- pools, paratransit and most private vehicles. Several ADA paths-of.travel are specified on the site plan for connection between the main hospital and all perimeter driveways. RTA operates Route 24 along some portions of SR79 but the bus currently does not stop at this site. RTA is currently studying a generai reconfiguration of bus routes In South- west Riverside County and anticipates additional bus service along SR79 and Margarita Rd in the relatively near future since it is an important arterial that would serve many commercial generators of bus traffic. In considering what transit amenities would be appropriate for the Temecula Hospital site, RTA staff looked at other comparable hospitals in the Inland Counties. In some cases, such as Route 17, the hospital is important enough to be the route terminus or name of the line as identified on the bus itself. Also, several distinct transit routes often serve a single large hospital, as listed on the next page. It was found that in general, buses would come onto the site, close to the main building, . to drop off and pick up passengers if the facility was publicly owned, such as Riverside F;\data\Planning\MikeMlWordlDev ReviewlT emecula\2004\T emeculaHosp.doc . County General Medical Center in Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like Kaiser or San Gorgonio, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby street. Some examples of transit service and stops are: · Kaiser Hospital in Riverside: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having multiple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc; · Loma Linda Hospital: 3 lines, with transit stops at several locations on perimeter of complex and other nearby medical facilities such as the Veterans Hospital: · Riverside General: 3 lines, with transit center and bus turn-around on site, very close and convenient to main building; · Riverside Community: 2 lines, bus stops along Magnolia, off the property: · Corona Regional Med Ctr: 2 lines, bus stops along S Main St, off the property: · St. Bernardine Med Ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland Valley Regional Medical Ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon its full build-out. RTA staff believes Riverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop configuration would be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the former also has several medical towers, doctor offices and a similar perimeter access road network. No on-site access for regular transit buses is anticipated at either site. To ensure safety and convenience of future transit operations at the Temecula Hospital, RTA is respectfully requesting the site plan or associated street engineering plans be amended to include a two or three-bay bus stop and bus turnout located at: . · North side of State Highway 79, on the far side (west of) the proposed signalized intersection with Country Glen Wyand the primary hospital entrance. The stop's taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end of the intersection's radius and extend for no less than 220 ft to accommodate two parked buses. The exact position would depend on location of utility structures, commer- cial signs, street lighting, key landscaping and other factors. The minimum depth (i.e. width) of the turnout is 10ft, however this may be reduced to 5 ft if a designa- ted, striped bike path is installed along this portion of State Highway 79. · Additionally, RT A requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the main building going directly out to the requested bus stop location. · RT A staff also requests that the project proponents consider investing in some additional architectural amenities for the bus stop, its benches and shelters by perhaps taking this opportunity to make a positive visual statement at this site in the. interests of maintaining the community image of Temecula. Because this facility will be one of the most well-known and visited places in the city, its bus stop is deserving of a high-quality bench and shelter that are visually compatible and complimentary to the main building architectural theme. The applicant's architect or engineers are urged to contact RT A staff for further details. RT A staff will request the multi-bay bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above be made conditions of approval for cases 04.()462 and 04-0463. RT A staff will work with future developers of the eastbound bus stop site (across SR 79) to ensure it is comparable and compatible with the stop in front of the Hospital. . INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: July 21, 2004. F:\dala\Planning\MikeMlWord\Dev Review\T emecula\2004\T emeculaHosp.doc @ RaIlchD '* Board ofDirectoril John E. Hoagland President Csaba F. Ko Sr. VICe President Stephen J. Corona Ralph R Daily Ben R. Drake I.JsaD.Herman John V. Rossi Officers: Brian J. Brady General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Director of Finance-Treasurer EoP. "Bob" LemoQS Director of Engineering Perry R. Louck Contnlller Linda M. Fregoso District Seaetluy/Administrative Services Manager C. Michael Cowett Best Best '" Krieger LLP General Counsel July 12,2004 .^~\ 1/:~~;:::: ) ~ 7(~: 1b 0.\. ~0":> P ,,\ :v <) ,{' '" ~ ,<, /" "-',\ v~~'> -::2 -~ v~'" ~ W ~~ WATER AVAILABILITY, TEMECUL EGIONAL HOSPITAL; PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP 13043; PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 6813; AND PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, NO.3, AND NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP 13734; APN 959-080-001 THROUGH APN 959-080-004, AND APN 959-080-007 THROUGH APN 959-080-010; PA04-0462 AND PA04-0463 Dan Long, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 - 9033 SUBJECT: Dear Mr. Long: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off- site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. All on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of RCWD. The project proposes to relocate RCWD's 12-inch discharge pipeline and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline must be contained within a minimum 20-foot-wide easement, which is located such that no permanent structures or trees are located within its boundaries. The project proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these requirements. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 7YLI III; . ~c~e~erpeter, P. Development Engineering Manager 04\MM:mcOI8\FCF . c: Laurie Williams. Engineering Services Supervisor Bud Jones. Engineering Project Coordinator Rancho California Water District 42135 Winchester Road . Post Office Iknt 9017 . Temeeula, California 92589-9017 . (909) 296-6900 . FAX (909) 296-6860 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc 20 . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080- 004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0571) WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware,lnc, filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080- 001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Project); WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA04-0571 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; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. PA04-0571 on April 6, 2005 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; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approve a Zone Change; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_, recommending the City Council approve a Tentative Parcel Map; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the Project, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder;; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OFTEMECULADOES . RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. FindinQs. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Application, hereby recommends the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment. B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Califomia Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract; C. The site is physical1y suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant; D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantial1y and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or . habitat on the project site, and the project wil1 not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the Application; E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive ornatural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; . G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements wil1 not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantial1y equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided; H. The subdivision is a commercial/office project and is not subject to Quimby fees. Section 3. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves the Project (Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468) to consolidate eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel for all of the foregoing reasons and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Oraft PC TPM Resolution.OOC 2 . . Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 6th day of April, 2005. David Mathewson, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that . PC Resolution No.2005- _ was duly and regularly adorted by the Planning Commission of the City of T emecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6' day of April, 2005, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary . R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 3 . . . EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_ (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 4 . . . RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959- 080-010 (P A04-0571) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; 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 Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act; C. The Planning Commission of the City ofTemecula held a duly noticed public hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; D. 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. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval of a Zone Change; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; E. 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. 2005-_,recommending approval of a Tentative Parcel Map; F. On , 2005, the City Council of the City of T emecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. G. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Dratt PC TPM Resolution.DOC 5 Resolution No. 05-_; approving a General Plan Amendment, Resolution No. 05-_ ; approving a . Zone Change, Ordinance No. 05-_; approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Tentative Parcel Map for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05- . Section 2. The City Council of the City of T emecula hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code for the following reasons: 1. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment . B. The Tentative Map does not proposed to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act contract of 1965 or the land is is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract. C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant; D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In . addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the Application; E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. H. The subdivision is a commercial project and is not subject to Quimby fees. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468, Application No. PA04-0571, consolidating eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into 1 parcel, for the property generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as assessors parcel no(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 6 . . . . Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ,2005. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of T emecula at a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2005, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 T emecula Regional Hospital\Dratt PC TPM Resolution.DOC 7 . . . EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA04-0571 (Tentative Parcel Map 32468) Project Description: A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 32468) to consolidate eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 DIF: Office TUMF: Service MSHCP: Commercial Approval Date: April 6, 2005 Expiration Date: April 6, 2008 WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. Planning Department 1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a check or money order made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1 ,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1 ,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 211 08(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty- eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 8 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT . Planning Department 2. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 3. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 4. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the properly owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the properly owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the properly owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." . 5. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/ archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 6. The Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 7. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre-construction agreement/treatment plan to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution,OOC 9 . . . . 8. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 9. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. Public Works Department 11. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 13. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 12. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF A FINAL MAP 14. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty miles (30) of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. ii. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Ternecula Planning Department. iii. This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. iv. This property is located within an area identified by the City of Temecula General Plan as being a sensitive area with regards to archeological and paleontological resources. R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 10 Public Works Department 15. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or the property owner. 16. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau e. Planning Department f. Department of Public Works g. Riverside County Health Department h. Cable TV Franchise i. Community Services District j. Verizon k. Southern California Edison Company I. Southern California Gas Company The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) i. The dedicated right turn lane into the main entry (Country Glen Way) shall be 12 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum. ii. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground. b. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way. c. Half-street improvements of De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial - 88' R/W) along property frontage plus taper to include installation of pavement, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). d. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) to be improved with additional paving to allow for two through lanes and a center turn lane. i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road to include paving, curb, gutter, street lights, over crossing of drainage channel, and utilities. R:IC U P\2004104.0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 11 17. . . . . . . State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap 18. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Half-street improvements of Dona Lynora (66' R1W) to include the installation of paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) b. Private (28 foot wide) ingress/egress road from Dona Lynora to De Portola Road to include installation of paving and curb as shown on the approved site plan. e. 19. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground 20. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. e. f. g. h. 21. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map with the exception of two (2) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. 22. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from De Portola Road on the Parcel Map with the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map. 23. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. R:\C U P\2004\04..Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 12 24. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. . 25. 26. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 27. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 28. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District . is required for work within their right-of-way. 29. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. . 30. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Department of Public Works. 31. A 28 foot easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergency vehicle access for all private streets and drives. . 32. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. " Fire Department 33. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 21/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B) R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 13 . . . . 34. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A) 35. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format,prior to satisfaction of this condition. 36. This parcel shall maintain reciprocal access to all parcels. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Planning Department 37. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 38. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. . 39. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project, as attached. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 40. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 14 41. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 42. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 50. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated November 19, 2004 from the Rancho California Water District. 51. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 19, 2005 from the Department of Environmental Health. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC 15 . . . @ Bancho Water Board of Directors John E. Hoagland President Csaba F. Ko Sr. Vice President Stephen J. Corona Ralph H. Daily Ben R. Drake Lisa D. Herman Michael R. McMillan Officers: Brian J. Brady General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Director of Finance-Treasurer E.P. "Bob~ Lemons Director of Engineering Perry R. Louck Director of Planning Jeff D. Armstrong Controller November 19, 2004 i~~([g~DW~~ ~J NOV 2 2 2004 lJ) Dan Long, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 By SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6813 PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13043; PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, NO.3, AND NO. 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO, 13734; APN 959-080-001, APN 959-080- 002, APN 959-080-003, APN 959-080-004, APN 959-080- 007, APN 959-080-008, APN 959-080-009, AND APN 959-080-010 CITY PROJECT NO. PA04-0571 [UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES] Dear Mr. Long: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off- site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Linda M. Fregoso District Secretary/Administrative Seni,~ M=ag~ If fue protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and C. Mi,hael Cowett requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner Best Best & Krieger LLP Gen","C,~el signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you should ha.veanyquestions, p!easecontact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Mi ael G.Meyerpeter, P. Development Engineering Manager 04\MM:at2IlIFCF c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Rancho CaIifomia Water District 42135 Winchester Road. Pust Office Box 9017 . Temecula. California 92589-9017 . (951)296-6900. FAX (951) 296-6860 ~~ o COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE . HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY 0 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH t January 19, 2005 ~n)~(~I-r;;-[]m [[~-I-~l 'J I to :- u, L'J E n J , .' II lULl JAN 2 1 2005 ~l IBy I ---"---'" City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 A'ITN: Dan Long RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468 (1 LOT) Dear Mr. Long: 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map 32468 and . recommends: a A water system shall be installed in accordance with plans and specifications as . approved by the water company and the Environmental Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate; with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part I, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California,. when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Parcel Map 32468 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such "Tentative Parcel Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Tentative Parcel Map at any specific quantities, flow& or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. A responsible official of the water company shall sign this certification. The plans must be submitted to the Countv Survevor's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. 2. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. . . Local Enlorcement Agency' 1'0. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 . {9091 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Ftoor, Riverside, CA 92501 Land Use and Water Engineering. P.O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502~1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 I' /" . Page Two Attn: Dan Long January 19, 2005 3. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed in accordance with plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor's Office and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be singed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tentative Parcel Map 32468is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tentative Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. 2. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. . Sincerely, a ~~ ,,"~~m~M lk.~ S"""oJ',, (909) 955-8980 .