Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010908 PC Agenda .. U!1I 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 Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE January 9, 2008 - 6:00 P.M. ******** Next in Order: Resolution No. 2008-01 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Commissioner Harter RollCall: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio 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. 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 December 5, 2007 R\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2008\010908.doc COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Elect a new Chair and Vice Chair 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 Plan nino Application Nos. PA07-0198. a General Plan Amendment: PA07-0199; Zone Chanoe: PA07-0200: Development Plan: PA07-0202. Conditional Use Permit: PA07-0201:. Tentative Parcel Map: submitted bv Universal Health Services of Rancho Sprinos. Inc.. to include the followino oroPOsals: Recommend that the City Council certifv and adopt a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and findinos pursuant to the California Environmental Qualitv Act. statement of overridino considerations. and mitioation monitorino. and reportino prooram. Recommend that the City Council approve the associated Plannino. Applications: The General Plan Amendment is a reouest to eliminate the Z2 overlav area from the General Plan. which currentlv limits the heioht of buildinos alon\,l Hiohwav 79 to two stories. The Zone Chanoe is a reouest to chanoe the zonino from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlav (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Develooment Overlav (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a heipht of UP. to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for the hospital bed towers. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit are reouests to construct approximatelv 565.260 souare feet of hospital. medical office. cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a reouest to consolidate eight lots into one parcel. The proposed proiect is located north of Temecula Parkwav (Hiohwav 79 South). south of De Portola Road and approximatelv 700 feet west of Maroarita Road. Emerv Papp. Senior Planner. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2008\010908.doc 2 ITEM #1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, December 5, 2007, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Commissioner Telesio thanked Ms. Craig for the prelude Music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Carey, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio. Absent: Chairman Chiniaeff. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of November 7, 2007. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval ~ith the exceotion of Chairman Chiniaeff who was absent. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS New Items 2 Plannino Application No. PA07-0057. a Development Plan. submitted bv Malkoff and Associates. for a Maior Modification to construct a combined hioh school. middle school and ovmnasium facilitv totalino 93.164 souare feet. located north of Temecula Parkwav. east of Jedidiah Smith Road approximatelv 800 feet west of Rancho Pueblo Road R\MinutesPC\ 120507 By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Assistant Planner LeComte provided a staff report, highlighting on the following: . Location . Background . Previously Approved Conceptual Plan . Partial Site Plan . Youth Activity Center . Site Plan Modifications . New Site Plan Layout . Conceptual Landscaping Plan . Elevations . Environmental Determination For the record Commissioner Telesio noted that although he is a neighbor to Pastor Treadway of Rancho Community Church, he was advised by the City Attorney that there would be no conflict of interest. Commissioner Carey also advised that although he is a member of Rancho Community Church, he does not have a conflict of interest. At this time, the public hearing was opened. A. Mr. Scott Treadway, representing Rancho Community Church, noted that he would be available for questions and would look forward to moving this project forward. Mr. Treadway also relayed that his church had the opportunity to partner with relief agencies with respect to the fire relief efforts and will look forward to future community services. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Chairman Chiniaeff who was absent. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS It was the recommendation of Assistant City Attorney Lee that the Planning Commission cancel the next two regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings and adjourn to January 9, 2008. Commissioner Telesio requested that the subject of ex-parte communications be agendized at a future meeting. Assistant City Attorney Lee advised the Planning Commission that Richards, Watson, and Gershon is preparing a 2008 summary of the Brown Act and the conflict of interest laws which will be available for the Planning Commission's review at the beginning of the New Year. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she will agendize ex-parte communications for a meeting in early 2008. Ms. Ubnokse also wished the Planning Commission a Merry Christmas and thanked them for their support over the year. R:\MinutesPC\ 120507 2 The Planning Commission thanked staff for their hard work and dedication and wished everyone a happy holiday. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No reports at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 6:20 pm, Commissioner Telesio formally adjourned to Januarv 9. 2008 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. John Telesio Vice Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R\MinutesPC\120507 3 ITEM #2 COMMISSION BUSINESS . Elect a New Chair and Vice Chair . ITEM #3 DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 9, 2008 Emery J. Papp, AICP TITLE: Senior Planner Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07- 0202 (Conditional Use Permit) 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 Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South) to two 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 are requests to construct approximately 566,160 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 lots into one parcel. The Project is generally located north of Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South), south of DePortola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. D Approve with Conditions D Continue to: !8l Recommend Approval with Conditions D Recommend Denial D Categorically Exempt (Section) (Class) D Notice of Determination (Section) D Negative Declaration D Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan [gI EIR G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SE1R\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 1 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Universal Health Services of Rancho Sprinqs, Inc. Date of Completion: July 3, 2007 Mandatory Action Deadline Date: General Plan Designation: Professional Office (POl Zoning Designation: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay District 8 (DePortola Road PDO-8) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: South: Very Low Density Residential (VU Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South), Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CC\ Professional Office (PO), Hiqhway/Tourist Commercial (HT), PDO-8 PDO-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay) East: West: Lot Area: 35.31 Total Floor Area/Ratio: 00.36 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 G:\Plannjng\2007\PA07~0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 2 BACKGROUND On January 24, 2006, the Temecula City Council voted unanimously to certify the Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and issue approvals for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project. The City Council Agenda Packet for January 24,2006 is included in this Staff Report as Attachment No. 15. Subsequent to the certification of the Project EIR and Project approvals, two separate legal challenges were filed in Riverside County Superior Court by the California Nurses Association and Citizen's Against Noise and Traffic. The lawsuits alleged that the City did not follow proper procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the City's Project EIR did not adequately analyze the impacts of the Project. In a Writ of Mandate issued by Judge Dallas Holmes on May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ruled that the City of Temecula did not properly analyze the Project impacts in the EIR related to an Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) plume in proximity of the Project site, siren noise in the vicinity of the Project site, construction noise, and the differentiation of Project's specific traffic mitigation and cumulative Project's traffic mitigation. In particular, the Court determined that the reliance on payment of fees to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program was not adequate mitigation for cumulative Project's impacts. The Court also ruled that challenges on other grounds, including: cumulative noise impacts; light and glare impacts; aesthetic impacts; landscape mitigation deferral; evaluation of biological resources; and land use consistency are denied because they were either adequately addressed in the Project EIR, or the petitioners failed to explain why these sections of the Project EIR were not adequate. In its ruling, the Court determined that the Temecula City Council "must set aside [its] approval of the Project and suspend all activity on the Project until it has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with CEQA." Resulting from this decision, the applicant submitted the following new Planning Applications: PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit) on July 3, 2007, and paid for a City managed EIR to comply with the Writ of Mandate issued by the Court. Funds were deposited into a trust account which the City then used to hire Environmental Science Associates; Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers: Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt, Engineers, and Wieland Associates to prepare a Supplemental EIR to address the issues identified by the Court as requiring further analysis. On August 3, 2007, legal counsel for the applicant submitted an ex-parte application to the Court seeking a clarification on the Writ of Mandate issued by Judge Dallas Holmes. In his August 22, 2007 response, Judge Holmes ruled that only those issues identified in the Writ of Mandate as being inadequate need to be further analyzed, and that all other portions of the previous Project EIR are deemed to be adequate under CEQA. A full Project EIR would not be required and that the preparation of a Supplemental EIR would be an acceptable method of complying with the Court's ruling. The City prepared a Supplemental EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital and circulated the Project for a 30-day public review and comment period, after obtaining approval from the State Clearinghouse for a shortened EIR review period. The City's request for a shortened review period was granted because the City had previously circulated a Project EIR and the scope of the Project has not changed. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 3 Because the City Council will be required to invalidate all prior certifications and approvals for the previous Project EIR and related Planning Applications, the Planning Commission must consider the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and the Project as a whole, prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, the following Project information is included. PROJECT HISTORY 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 Pico 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 (Council Member Comerchero and Council Member 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 included the following: . Traffic and circulation (access points) . Building height and views . Compatibility with residences . Noise . Helipad (location and number of flights) On April 6, 2005. the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this Project. Staff received comment letters 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 Qualitv Act (CEQAI 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-019a Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 4 . 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 Hvdroloov 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, however, once paved or built upon, this will be difficult to track The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt of these comments and recommended that an 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 the EIR for the hospital Project. It was determined that the 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT. doc 5 November 16. 2005 Plannina Commission Meeting On November 16. 2005. a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Commission to present the comprehensive Temecula Regional Hospital Project, the associated applications that required City Council approval, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for this Project, and to take public testimony concerning the proposal and the EIR. The Planning Commission was informed by the EIR consultant and staff that the responses to written comments on the EIR had not yet been completed, and the Planning Commission determined that a continuance would be in order to review the entire record prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. It was determined that the public hearing would be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 7, 2005. It was also recommended that the City Council meeting, originally scheduled for November 22, 2005, be continued to December 13, 2005. Chairman Mathewson then opened the hearing for public comment. A total of 46 people submitted Request to Speak forms. Of these. 39 people spoke, 29 in favor and 10 against the proposed Project. During the public testimony portion of the public hearing, new evidence was presented with regard to potential leaking underground storage tanks and the potential for these to contaminate groundwater and an existing Rancho California Water District well site adjacent to the Project site. The California Environmental Quality Act requires jurisdictions to evaluate the impacts of a Project on the environment, and not the impacts of the environment on the Project. This pre-existing condition had been monitored by the State of California and it is the sole responsibility of the owners of the leaking underground storage tanks to remediate the conditions. However, because this issue was raised in a public forum, staff evaluated the potential threat of groundwater contamination beneath the site. Staff contacted the Rancho California Water District and verified that a domestic water well adjacent to the proposed hospital site is currently in production and has never tested positive for contaminants commonly found in groundwater that has been contaminated by gasoline. As a result, staff did not consider this to be an environmental impact that should be addressed in the EIR. Staff and the EIR consultant prepared responses to Agency comments and general public comments. CEQA requires local jurisdictions to respond in writing to Agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR no less than ten days prior to the City Council's certification of the EIR. The City sent written responses to the Public Agency comments on November 12, 2005. Under CEQA, the City is not required to provide written responses to general public comments, or comments that were received after the Public Review period has closed. The City, however, chose to respond to all comments received up to and at the public hearing held on November 16, 2005. The responses to comments are included as an attachment to the original Project EIR. Staff believed the responses to comments clearly demonstrated that the EIR and the Technical Appendices satisfactorily addressed all of the concerns raised by Agencies and the general public through the public review process. While some of the commenting public disagreed with the analyses contained in the EIR, staff believed that with the responses to comments, the EIR was sound and met the State CEQA Guidelines requirements for disclosure of public information. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Plannlng\PJanning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 6 The original Project EIR stated that there would be Unavoidable Significant Impacts created by this Project that could not be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. State law, in particular the California Environmental Quality Act, permits a local jurisdiction to approve a Project having Unavoidable Significant Impacts, provided the local jurisdiction discloses this information in the EIR and can make the findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration. These Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration are contained in the Staff Report of record for the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit A of Attachment 3 which allows the City Council to render a decision to approve the applications put forth by Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. and to certify the EIR. A number of issues were raised at the November 16, 2007 Planning Commission Hearing. The following is a discussion of those issues: Phasina There was some confusion regarding the phasing of this Project because phasing had been identified in three different ways: for the Project, for construction, and for traffic related mitigation. To clarify these issues, the Project was broken down into five Project phases. The construction schedule, however, was broken out into three phases. The first construction phase included the Project's Phase 1 A and consisted of grading, clearing, and constructing Medical Office Building (MOB) NO.2 and surface parking. This phase is expected to last ten months. The second construction phase included Phase 1 B and consisted of the one-story hospital, six-story bed tower, and additional surface parking. This phase is expected to last 14 months. The third and final construction phase consisted of Project Phases, II, III, IV and V and included the second hospital bed tower, MOB No.1, Cancer Center, Fitness Center, and additional surface parking. This final construction phase is expected to last 12 months. Traffic mitigation was put into two general phases that were defined in the Conditions of Approval for this Project. For traffic mitigation purposes, Phase 1 was defined as the construction of a 170-bed hospital with an 80,000 square foot medical office space. For traffic mitigation purposes, Phase 2 was defined as the expansion to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space. Traffic Residents that live on DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road expressed concerns that the Project as proposed, with an access off of DePortola Road, would significantly impact the carrying capacity and Level of Service on these roads with the additional vehicle trips generated by this Project. The findings from the traffic study that was prepared for this Project were restated by the Public Works Director who indicated that Level of Service on both roads will remain below LOS "D." G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT. doc 7 Gas Plum~ An expert witness testified that a gas plume has been migrating from three gas stations in proximity of the hospital Project site, and this has been known for years. This issue was not included in the EIR. In the opinion of the expert witness, this potential environmental impact must be evaluated in the EIR. Alternative Sites Public speakers inquired as to what other sites the applicant had investigated prior to purchasing the subject property. The applicant responded that they had investigated two other sites, but the subject property had best met their needs. Public speakers also inquired why sites other than the Corona Family properties had not been considered in the Alternatives section of the EIR. Specifically, two City-owned sites were mentioned, the Diaz Road/Dendy Parkway (Campus) site, and a site generally located at the southwest corner of Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South) and Interstate 15. December 7, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission meeting which was originally continued to December 7, 2005 was convened and once again continued to allow the EIR consultant and staff additional time to complete the responses to the extensive comments presented at the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. As a result, the Planning Commission approved a motion to continue this item to January 5, 2006. January 5, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission was presented with the responses to general public comments and information to respond to questions and issues raised at the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The issues discussed and clarified at the January 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting included the following: Traffic Staff re-evaluated some of the traffic impacts associated with the approval of this Project. Originally the City felt that providing a "second phase" connection to Margarita Road via Dartolo Road would be a good alternative that may lessen concerns regarding the Project's driveway access on to De Portola Road. The EIR analyzed the Dartolo Road access alternative and found that the connection actually created a significant traffic impact. The traffic impact is an operational problem created by adding additional turning movements to the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road intersection. The Dartolo Road/Margarita Road intersection was determined to be too close to the Margarita Road/Temecula Parkway intersection and was not enough vehicle stacking distance in the Margarita Road left-turn pockets to accommodate the additional Project turning movements. The Dartolo Road connection to Margarita Road would result in the intersection's break down and would force the signal's removal at an earlier date. The EIR showed that the DePortola Road driveway access had no significant traffic impacts. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 8 For these reasons staff recommended that the Condition of Approval for the Dartolo Road access to Margarita Road be removed. By removing this Condition of Approval, further biological studies were not required to facilitate this connection because the area would be avoided. Furthermore, staff concurred that there was no need for traffic mitigation on Pio Pico. Staff believed that the traffic consultant's observation that Pio Pico would not serve as a route for Hospital access was correct. To mitigate the concern that traffic may be encouraged to use Pio Pico. the City required that the DePortola Road access not align with Pio Pico and it was moved approximately 700 feet to the east of Pio Pico. The estimated traffic volumes that would be added to local roads as a result of this Project would not cause the Level of Service for Pio Pico to exceed the City's goal of Level of Service "D". Gas Plume An investigation was completed on the subject property that included testing soil conditions at ten locations on the subject property. These locations were selected because they are within the proposed footprints of the hospital and medical office buildings. The tests checked the soil vapor at approximate depths of five feet at each location. The results of this test show that there was no evidence of soil contamination due to gases escaping from the plume and making their way into the soil. The soil tests did not confirm whether or not the groundwater at this location is contaminated with constituents found in gasoline and other petroleum products. However, the Rancho California Water District, who owns and operates a domestic well adjacent to the site, indicated that the domestic well adjacent to the subject site was not in danger of contamination. Rancho California Water District has verified that the most recent test samples from this well have not detected constituents commonly found in groundwater that has been contaminated by gasoline. Alternative Sites Two additional sites were discussed by public speakers at the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting as potential locations for the proposed hospital. The first is a 32-acre property west of Diaz Road and north of Dendy Parkway which is owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula. The Agency had entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement for the sale of this property to the AGK Group, LLC for the development of a mixed-use Project that includes a higher education center, approximately 280 apartment units, of which 50 are reserved for affordable housing, retail, a conference facility, and a child care facility. The City also had a Development Agreement in place with the developer of this Project and also had approved plans for the Project. This site, therefore, was not available for the hospital. A second site is a property west of 1-15 at Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South), which was purchased for the sole purpose of upgrading the 1-15/Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South) interchange. The property is approximately 30 acres, but less than 20 acres is out of the flood zone. The property will have limited access after the interchange work is done. The property was purchased with regional transportation funds and the City has a contractual obligation to use the property for the interchange improvements. This site was, therefore, not available for the hospital. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc g The applicant also presented information to support the height of the proposed five- and six- story hospital bed towers. The applicant asserted that based on the number of proposed beds needed in the City, the proposed design was the most efficient to protect the life and safety of patients. The Planning Commission struggled with the height issue of the proposed bed towers, but ultimately passed a motion to recommend the City Council support the Project as proposed. The applicant contended that the bed towers could not be redesigned to a lower height without sacrificing patient care and without jeopardizing its compliance with State regulatory requirements and that any reconsideration of the design would result in additional delays of up to two years in providing necessary hospital services for the community. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to move forward with the current proposal, noting that the height is an issue and should be discussed further by the City Council. January 24, 2006 City Council Meeting Staff presented the proposed Project and identified issues of concern. In addition, an Environmental Impact Report was presented, which identified potentially significant environmental impacts. Staff included Conditions of Approval and prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program that addressed Project concerns and reduced the potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. with the exception of short-term, long- term, and cumulative air quality impacts; noise impacts related to helicopter flights; and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was been prepared. On January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council review and accept the responses to comments as adequately addressing the concerns raised by reviewing agencies and the general public, and recommended that the City Council of the City of Temecula certify the Project EIR and approve Planning Applications PA04-0462, PA05- 0302, PA04-0463, and PA04-0571. The City Council unanimously voted to adopt the Statements of Overriding Consideration for the Project, to certify the Project EIR, and approve each of the Planning Applications associated with the Project. Legal Challenges On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic filed petitions with Riverside County Superior Court seeking to invalidate the City Council's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project. On May, 3 2007. Judge Dallas Holmes issued his ruling which found that portions of the Project EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital did not comply with CEQA and ordered that the City set aside its approval of the Project until the issues identified by the Court were further evaluated. To comply with the Court's order, the City prepared a Supplemental EIR. PROJECT ANALYSIS The Project has not changed in scope since it was originally considered by the Planning Commission in January 2006. However, because the City Council must set aside its prior certification of the Project EIR and related Planning Application approvals, the Planning Commission must consider the entire record before making a recommendation to the City G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SE1R\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 10 Council regarding the Project approvals and adequacy of the Supplemental EIR. Below is an analysis of each Planning Application which must be acted upon in the following order: PA07-0198, General Plan Amendment The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the subject properties from the Future Specific Plan Z overlay, Figure LU-4 in the General Plan Land Use Element. The description and objectives of the Future Specific Plan Z Overlay 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." PA07-0199, 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 5) was filed to allow flexibility with 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. The Professional Office underlying General Plan Land Use for site will remain unchanged. PA07-0202, 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 and would only be used to transport patients requiring specialized treatment to other facilities. The applicant stated there would be two or three flights per month on average, but the permit to be G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT doc 11 obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad would permit up to six landings per month. In 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. PA07-0200, 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 fA 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, Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South) access points and surface parking. Phase IA is expected to take ten months to complete. Phase IB 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. Access/Circulation There are two primary access points, both of which are located along Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South). The primary access point along Temecula Parkway (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. 103d.) The other access point along Temecula Parkway (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 Planned Development Overlay 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 Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South), which have historically and may again in the future, . close down Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South). Additional access points that are not G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 12 located along Temecula Parkway (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. 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 Temecula Parkway (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; Temecula Parkway (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. 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 Desian/Architecture 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 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 Temecula Parkway (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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 13 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. Buildino 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 "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. 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. Landscaoina Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25-foot wide bermed landscape planter along Temecula Parkway (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 California Pepper trees between the Project site and residential areas to the north (DP Condition No. 78). PA07-0201, 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 Pio Pico 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT-doc 14 LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on December 8, 2007 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION For the original Project, staff prepared a Project Environmental Impact Report and recommended Mitigation Measures for the proposed Project. A Draft Project 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 the original Project was from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. The following impacts were 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 helicopter flights . Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts The following impacts were identified in the Draft EIR as Potentially Significant Impacts that can be mitigated: . Aesthetics - Light and glare . Noise - Operational impacts . Transportation - Project impacts The following mitigation measures were recommended for the Project. IMPACT AREA Air Quality MITIGATION AQ-1. The applicanUpermittee 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 applicanUpermittee 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 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 applicanUpermittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards appropriate for medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of California requlations. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA. SEJR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 15 AQ-4. The applicanUpermittee 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 applicanUpermittee's expense. AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the applicanUpermittee 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 applicanUpermittee 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 day, 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. AQ-8. During the course of the Project grading and construction, the applicanUpermittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all qeneral traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 16 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 (Le., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the Project to the maximum extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (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/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf http://www.delta-institute .org/pu blications/paints. pdf AQ-15. The Project site shall be watered down no less than three 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. AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, includinq directional siqns to/from the public streets (De Portola G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 17 Noise Road and Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South)) to promote alternative transportation. N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully operational upon completion of Project construction, the applicanUpermittee 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 applicanUpermittee 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 applicanUpermittee 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, no more than an average of six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a rnass 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-B During demolition and construction operations, the applicanU permittee shall stage all stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical from surroundinq residential properties. T-1. Signalize the main Project site access from Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South) opposite Country Glen Way with the following configuration: Westbound: 1 right-turn lane 3 through lanes 1 left-turn lane Easfbound: 2 left-turn lanes 2 through lanes 1 shared throuqh/riqht lane G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 18 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 applicanUpermitlee will pay Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South) intersection atl-15. T-3. The Project applicanUpermiUee will contribute a fair share toward the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the Project's contribution toward cumulative impacts: Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South)//-15 Southbound Ramps: Additional southbound left-turn lane Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South)//-15 Northbound Ramps: Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert westbound right lane to free right turn Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South)/La Paz Road: Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and one shared through/right lane Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South)/Pechanga Parkway: Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus eastbound and northbound free right-turn lanes Temecula 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 Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South)/Redhawk Parkway /Margarita Road and 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-3. The applicanUdeveloper 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SE1R\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT. doc 19 The Supplemental EIR that was prepared pursuant to the Riverside County Superior Court's ruling includes additional significant impacts that are deemed Unavoidable Significant Impacts identified as: . Noise impacts associated with emergency vehicle sirens . Noise impacts associated with Project construction . Direct Project-related traffic impacts . Cumulative traffic impacts In addition to the mitigation measures proposed for the original Project EIR, the following mitigation measures are recommended in the Supplemental EIR to reduce the impacts to the extent practicable. Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Supplemental EIR is included as Attachment 3, Exhibit A. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDA TION Staff has reviewed the proposed Project and has identified various issues of concern. In addition, an Environmental Impact Report and a Supplemental EIR have been prepared, which identifies 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, or to the extent practicable. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval. Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201 and PA07-0202 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. A study commissioned in 2007 by the Regional Medical Task Force, which is made up of representatives of the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Hemet, Perris, Canyon Lake and Riverside County, indicates that Southwest Riverside County has a severe shortage of existing hospital beds throughout the region. There are currently 1.05 hospital beds per 1,000 people, whereas the State of California, as a whole, has about 2.2 beds per 1,000 people. Riverside County's public health officer and director of its community health agency has said the southwest part of the county would need to double the amount of beds to get to the state average, but that wouldn't be enough to stay ahead of the expected population growth during the next two decades. In addition to the shortage of hospital beds, the study concluded that the Southwest Riverside County region has fewer than half of the statewide average number of physicians per person, and the State of California ranks 49th in the nation for the number of registered nurses per person. In addition to the provision of services, 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. G:\Ptanning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORTdoc 20 FINDINGS 1. Statement of Overriding Consideration The Planning Commission finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts, noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights identified in the Final EIR, siren noise, construction noise, and direct traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts identified in the SEIR and in the record. In making this finding, the Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The Planning Commission finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project: a. All feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because while they generally have similar or less environmental impacts, they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. b. 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. c. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide superior, easily accessible necessary medical services to the local community, including but not limited to emergency, acute, outpatient, and cancer medical care and physical rehabilitation services. Southwest Riverside County in general, and the City of Temecula specifically, is in need of new and expanded hospital facilities to enhance the ability to provide medical services to the area which continues to experience substantial population growth and related increased demand for medical services. d. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with new employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services workers. e. 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. 2. General Plan Amendment 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 diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, 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 3);" and "A City G:\Planning\2007\PA07.019a Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 21 compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation 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 and conditions of approval have been imposed 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 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 height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and state highway corridors rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens upon entry to the project site, and sirens may only be used in emergency situations. The Project is a conditionally permitted use and 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-019a Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SE1R\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 22 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, medical office buildings, cancer research and treatment center, physical therapy and rehabilitation center, and a helipad. The nature of these uses, 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 of the 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. 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-Hospital Facility (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 diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, 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 3);" and "a City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-019a Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORTdoc 23 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 were 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 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 Y. mile from the Project site. The Project is a conditionally permitted use and 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 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 TemecuJa Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 24 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. 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. 5. Conditional Use Permit-Helipad (Code Section 17.040.010E) a. The helipad 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. b. The helipad shall not be used until the Applicant applies for and obtains 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. c. Noise exposure from helicopter flights will be minimized to the extent practicable because helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of the preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast, which avoids flying over residential areas. 6. 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 2S 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 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 T emecula 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 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. 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 28 2. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 29 3. PC Resolution 08-_ (Draft SEIR) - Blue Page 30 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 08-_ 4. PC Resolution 08-_ (General Plan Amendment) - Blue Page 31 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 08-_ G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 26 5. PC Resolution 08-_ (Zone Change) - Blue Page 32 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 08-_ 6. PC Resolution 08-_ (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 33 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 08-_ 7. PC Resolution 08-_ (Development Plan) - Blue Page 34 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 08-_ 8. PC Resolution 08-_ (Tentative Parcel Map) - Blue Page 35 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 08-_ 9. Response to Comment Letters Received on SEIR - Blue Page 36 10. Comment Letters Received - Blue Page 37 11. Draft SEIR - Blue Page 38 12. Authorization of Shortened Public Review of SEIR - Blue Page 39 13. Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of SEIR - Blue Page 40 14. Notice of Preparation of SEIR - Blue Page 41 15. January 24, 2006 City Council Minutes - Blue Page 42 16. January 24, 2006 City Council Staff Report - Blue Page 43 17. January 5, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes - Blue Page 44 18. December 7,2005 Planning Commission Minutes - Blue Page 45 19. November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes - Blue Page 46 20. November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 47 21. April 20, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes - Blue Page 48 22 April 6, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 49 23. Notice of Public Hearing - Blue Page 50 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT. doc 27 .,.0 .;i'~ ",0 O'~ ..,,<f " ~<, ~O " L ~ >;- ~ ~ 1> ~ ~ ~ 'J, ~<~ Vo v< " '" -0 '" ~o "'0 of 6' q' P ~'O,..o~'Q <(..~G~p " ~ 'i ~ ~ '" ~ ~ "& '" <;c ~ 00 Q q,~ " \ ~{; w ~~-o~>!? ~\-O'S C'0' 'b '" '" '?", '" , '" ~"'f'-\~~':> -J\p..<;:'i" ,~o dI-''''' ~q .<tI" .~,,-<<)JJ# ;.-;f\;.,"'" "4 ,f 1,.01- d! ~ ~ (~ " "'0 1- \ ~ ~ to project Site (j..-O?-'O Qf'-<f-'I. '"' v..<(..'i--'~'<;.."<'- S o"?'- ~,), ,,~\~\tJ~P <-to. 1'J.-G: ~ ('q. '-< ~ L ". 'C. '-' 'b \ 'i 1P " 6 'l. 1 cV<<t;,\-'S~'f.f'< r)J.,y.?-0 >J\p..'i\\O'o* \.o~....\~p..~O o 100 200 wQ!. 400 """ -- ,jJ J '" ::; JVI-4 """'os if I "," v;r c' """, '",-, '< "-;- "'", "i; '+.., 'lJ. d 4<'" .,..- eo<> -reet ATTACHMENT NO.1 VICINITY MAP G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 28 ATTACHMENT NO.2 PLAN REDUCTIONS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-G198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 29 ... C( . cu~ 0011 _II: ViI! C ~ ::;::It cu 5 ,.L.. ~ ~:S , as::l ()O ._w 'O~ cuI!:! :E as - ~ ~ E ~ I ~ I I Ii II 111' J:;; ~ lit -------~ II! i.I\1111 I . \~I ;1 . " - I . I I .., I .1' '_:ri"'r III .'-----: '0' __ III _'r; I ;!-""Milf'IOO . ,. -- i I I ~---- . 1"':':;;'4,- ".""Itf' . . . ,1 .' 1 ,: : I I ,.. 'I . ( dill i ~:: i : ;'! II ; -'::1 ' " :,1: Ii I :~' ! I ':.,! r I II ':' ~ I il I' , . , : ill' :- I..______n I I. ~ ~. ~. i (t ,^ ":1 ! I ;! U.l I.. I I d I I V :1 I. I. ~ I I ~ _ =., 'l'II"l"!'" 1,1"1 I 1:::1 11.1 11M II II II . I. I EJ< Ie. Il' 1 i nit .1- ~ If f ~:t ,. ~ it : : :!nn_________nm_nmmm________J \ I " I t ." :: : JiIIl' ~];~ JI ~~ ~ J , mu 1 ~ l , -0 ._ ~~___ 0 1-- J 1..1 b 1r:....T11l J f"" TI HJ .11 ~. i i (V I 1 i i i 1\I!I!~111 j! I Il~ I I . , i I ii, I i Ii II 1IIIIIIh II , ' II,P., ,II I, I ~ I ~ ~ .1. Q ('! 11! I ~ I II JIi, III ~ W~I ~!.lil 1,,1, I "~ dd,~ .td~~ ~ II ~ .. o 111~ lei I -, I j 1,1 , ~ lJl ~I )! II ~ \ i~\\\~ ~ ~& ~l(l< \'\\\\\\\\\\.\ ~ f!i ~ \ ~ 11 ',I I'^ \ \ "'\ 52 I .ll "'<J 1" lii!l ~~ l~U;\h J i ~\ \ \ \ ! l Ii I i ~\.\\ el\ .\ 111lml.. \. \ \ ..t .\\ ~\l 1\' I" 1'\ "- ---:;.--~ ---::::;--- - ~--- ~ I ~ulbjl~ \ 1\ t ____1\ \ a I~ -'1 i \: , . ~~~~~~~~~t ,,: , . . : . \ . . ~----- \ , '\ \ \ ..:.::~;-.-~---,-~':'::_"':..-"':::':':':': \ ....-.............~ 2 I. \. \. II 't \.. It!/l \ \\~\ \~ 11"1.'\.\\\ ~ .> \\ \ \\: ~ \\\\\~ \\\\\ ~ l \ \ \ \ \ I \ I \ \ I I I I ._.~-~- \ \ . \ . \ I \ \ \ \ II \ \ \ . II \ .' -yR \ II \ \ ~ . \' , . . \ \ i \ \ . ) \ ., \ \ l & \\\t I. ~ ~. " ~ ( ~ ,^ : i I d. UJ a> ~11!~i~ ~ 1111 ii II ~.~ .!!- ~ lit ..:z: ~ ,I f90 .Ie. c;:> c;:> c;:> c;:> i ! i ! 0---' 0-' 0-- 0-. 0- 00:. ~ 00''- i i i i I i 6-6 -- 6 . - 0 . - 0 " I i o ..............i.._...".".... t'r J ~ I- :5 IIIII~ , . I i, .. co _.. ...-.I'..oI.L_ I'. ~ ~'I' i ~ / ,^ , S I .. '!!JJ. .1 · I I s' Ii ~I tl~ll .1!ftS! 2) IIlil..i1.i Ii Ii 11111.1 I Go leo .II l .!!- c:j IJ! · d~ (!.% J !I ? ?? ? i i i ! ! ! ! ! ! 6n~ 0 n 0- 0 n 0 0 . 0 I' .c' ~. C') lull~ ~ .. o .... -- -- - -- ,r, ~. ~.. ~ l ( in ~ i II .IW,J. e> .111 fill ~ I~ !Il ii II ~ ~ .I", ~ !'" . eQ. i d~ !1U1~ . illillll , r. -::~ I Gl 'hi Ie. - .1 .. i ~ . ... Illl Ie i it J ~ ~ ',~, I 1 ~I ~ :-:1 r t ~ ~ I I , J"II t ~ _ ...."Iil'__'-. ..... ~.,! "J Ii ~i LJ,,~~! re j! ~ a> lil!!dllll!i~I~!il!i~liLII:E !f J pp ~ ~ l~ ~ f::.flULtt.L , ,1'1 I II III ,-0 IIi ~ S c,-L l!l II "I m~ ~ y-- ~-- fl==ll It -L ~ 1_--11 ~_~lli ... o . , I, t l\. ; ~ ~ !i It! Go lie- U~~ 2 ~ i i ~ 'i',,'1Jt. ~'" .',. . _.'. n' . _.' ~ - ?$t]. G .~ . 1:. ' . "iL..'"'"....,__.....u .",.... I c' IIIL~ ~l .. o !'~ i ~'~. ! f l ,^ . , I I Ii U.l I! " I I I II II" "VI c:.\I!1 ~I!ll! I! 1!~II' Id, I- r=I ... 1i.1 .1 " "U, h. I '~'" f' . , I . II. -" 8; .. .. .--. r-; i i1 Il " .. . ... .II 3 "r · t J .t+t+++~t tULLtJ_ __ ~ I, IL II .. I I ~ l:l !I .lJI ! C I~ III 115l1~ Go Ie- t+t+t+j+~ ' -. 2 . " iii ~ Iii & ; M~~___L. JJ~ I ',': 1 - -..-"" -- !. ~ ~ " t II ,^ . ;. i I II UJ , ,1., ,II ,V Ie) ~III.~ ,1:1 n U ~ II I 11 3 .!~ f IJI ~--t ~ -- tt~. . -- 0(;) (;l? 0 . 0~ ~j 'Iii ii! 1 -1--' ---itr--- , . I -. :, i I I I i :1 j j i . : . -.. ---~-r--' . -'-'-i-'- 7; j i i o -----Ir-+- -.-fi-- , i i i o -------.i-.~ - . - . . , ~. : I- nv~vlv I '1" ~- . - uuml~I:1 ------"" Rt' IIf'P Ii. U-IIl-I- . - -- .w... --- 1-1---- ----. "'111'" '" I I . 'I I : .. I: : 0--= . -.- -.--- ---' ~-=:-----t-l, ~--t ~ ~ -- -.- ' . ----- .-.-: I''ll I : ~f,--- : k';',~I_+=- 9 ~....,...~""'~ ~--t ~ I ~ ~ ~} Il~ Ie. - I I ~ L 0__0 __ 0 __ 0 __ 0, __ ~_ ~ __ 0 __ G ._ ~ .. C;l.-? i'i''''!.''''1''''i'''' ! -~ !f"i"i""'j -~- , I I ' ___i___~_-k-__._l )----t- -t---t---- : ~ ! Iii i i . i i. I ! I 1'[ i' .. ./- i i : I ... ---r--'r'--l'--' . " '_' J:IY' i i : _ I --:---al -'1,. -. "1",,;1 . i :~ 1'1' I.. ,-- I --1'--- - I ... L i .} __I i i I l:l 1--: I: ~ I : Ii -i I L I' " 1'; 'I i I Ii'" ,.., I ---1-.__1-____1.-_. ~.... -.---I~- 1 , I , I j i i '--~ 'i _. _ -. ,'- . -t-.-- -. .--- . I . I , ! ! 1 !! I I , ! ! !, !! ! ---. ! ! -"""1----- .-. ~ I : i : r-i- {IIE"I.""'~"'III."'IIL".j"""tllnll"ll"IIII'"'I.J.. L I I ~l If'S I, l.l -II~ ~ 8 : [ d k! ,~I ~1'!~'1 I' I' L" I 'l' WI ... .. 000 i ... N IIUIIC I I I I , " h .. o _'"..........'llI.......'--....1 '-I': ~ Ii ~l' ~ i tli (/) ..' ~ . ~ .! I ., Y a) 1I111~h dUll !lli II I il~il I f~ II /: -:i d 5- ~ Ii 1 ..x ~ ~2? __ 0.<;1 -- 0.~? __ <]1 i Ii i i 'ii i i i &--"t----l - -I.---t,,--."t--.- .. '-II. '.. . o --' -. ';;!I;,I. ' : -j--+--- I ' i i i I Iii I i o ----'-'j-- . -----1--- - I i I Iii 0-"'--I+fl-il-- -. r- - '-- . . . . . I . . !!' I ! I i O L' ~- - .~_.-- -.- -.----;-1" · I" i i i i i i o .. -11-' . --.- '-, 'LOO ' ; i i i i i 8 ~ -I ----I-- 1- - - ,-I -1-.- ---- ,I I I I I I , o - - -------. - ---.---- .--- 'f--- . I I o -.-.-.----- --- +-- - ----+-.- .--- I ~ ~ ' 0,----,--- -----.--- - ----.--- .--- I I 0.\------- I,"":lr-l - eyL_._----+-_._~--_._- ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 1'--', -- 1 -- f -- r -- 1 -- 1 -- i -- ) - f .- '1--1 i! i i ! i I I i I I i ~ ~ , , , --'-"---T---- '- - -j-- - t- -t---- . : I_.J__L_L_._J_J i I: 1 . -+ 1 .1 I I I 1 I o ~-- ;----p--r-- :::J Iii ~! :---tr+ w.pc..- Ii !~. I.-C I . . ~. I ~ . r.'L -~ I I In." , ~ , .-. 'Yo I '1 . 1" .' "" ~.- --.--1-----1--. _ _._ " I..:r, I ' " '. , 0' -+ ---!----I---+-'-- --.-!-.- I ! - . -- .. , ! I !! ! i ! , I ! !! ! i I 0-'.--t-'-'-j-----j'----r--'- . . . ."t.-- i i i i i i I ........'~....li.n....--.riIl. , r I ., l:I II!I~ Ie .1 .. .. ,I I S I'~'-' ~ ~ ~ ~ l ' ,^ , .: I I 1'1 U.I . :I!, 1l,lllV 'If I I I '. - al lii;lln Ii ;i I, III, J~ I 11,1 j,~ ~]} I". ,e< I I. II ~ u J I'l un l~ I . , "j II .. o l , ii, .. o - ---... -- ! ( 1.~I~h'II~I~:I'lillt(~ ~ II i ++ + + + + + U, L~~~.. ;t ~ ill III II ill r'! ..-'" ! ..-'" I .__.U I "'-.u l .1>-,1;' : I I I.Q-~ I I ! i ! ! i " ! i ! i i i i i ii hi l. !il b ~ --I il ~ II ~ -~ Ie. I' L lilL5 t ++ + + + + + ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ :~1l I~ ~J ~~.~; iil !-' , I T ~ . 1 'j ..-~I ; .9-..' i .;~;:t ; '''-'~'. : .<J-.~' ~ i i ! ! ! ! = j [i i ! i i ~ I il ! i . I I I 1-- ! ! I I I II~ - I ~ I i I Ii " !! ~ o I' 0 . I j j i i I; l. ! ! ! ! ....."-....o6I......'----o;;r,;y 1"1--' . ~ ~~ Ii i en ' , . I ' , i II 'I! ~ ,I ,III' V la. ."I~~ II !j .1 .! Ii r I .!- ~ ::Ii f If ~ .H. + t + i~ + ,j:.I! ~ * ~ ,~ ~1 O!;'ij! ~ ~' if. 'iil 2" ~~~ n. ~ .-." ~ .'-" ~ n' ~ _." ~ ~ t : I i .~.~L I ! ~ f . ! , : I I . ~! ill 1 " . ~I ' l ' : ~I !il i .. hI " l..' 0 I- ~ ,I '~ l~ ~ .. . I: . .1. ~ ,ldl,5 j i .. o , r ~~ 1 ~ , ~ ~ .~~ IiJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t.J .w-~, I .~-J:I i .It""..-' i .g-.t, 1 ~~.-' III II I ' . I I iI: igi I i-'~I I" I.. .~ i;J ! ~- ~ , l - -..-..- -.,.;" ~.!. . " ~ . ~ I . ]! I, . I I ,I II II 1:::.\111 JI!I J r: I:! I }I,.J Ii ~ 'I I- Il::I _.. lill ~'I ~llll l.lJ. ~i ~ I... J Ell {!.r, ++ + ;- t ;- .h.~ ~ t~ ~, ~.: ....~ e .!~.. ~jb~ ~ ~~ ill ~~ ~-'T ...-.u I '-"-.': t ....-.... ; .........~.....-1 ! i I '~T i . . . III t.t .!I ~~~ Il I eo ::j1'. L ++ ;- ;- + + ~~ ~.fg~~ $$, ~~ ~ I~ ~~ r'i .-..-~, i .~'~~ ~~, 1 P-.~I ! i Iii ~ i ' ~ . I . i : !!i I l;; ; I . I Bi ~I I , ! !ii fl I lilL5 l I Ii .. o . ! - -_.~--~~- -- -- -... I',~~'~~(cn. ' . .-1 : I i'l II '1 I' I'~" :'" I 5 II ':, ~ J;;;,.\ ,ill I~ I! hi! I, 1'1 11 I r=:I 0.. III II dlul , I il Go lie. 11 " :! 15 f E'il. "l! ....:1: ~ I il ++ t + ++ + t !; ~ [0 !t ~~$. t, ~ f, ~~ ~ ~l ~ l ~~~ "f j :19"::,. .9-,.1 , .1I-.~' , .9-,[1 . .lI-,~1 ; I ; i ! .<>-.... ! , I , ; i i I ill II! I: S .. 0 \ 1111L~ - -...-- -- l..{ 'I \ ' · ~ ~ (J) \ ..~ 1 I ,'I " I. !' " ~ 1 .~ \1' Sl l!il Ul\\li.h h ill ,t W \\\\\\\\\\\\\\II~ I Ji ".~"'.'.""""". "<' . .:-: t i~ n :," .,.'.:- :':. ,,', ~ ,^_ . I ",,;- 'j! -" . - : ~.. ".. > ; ..~~.,.'. ... o .~ OJ 'en 'en 'aJ , ' ! ' ,.n__ '9'9'9\9'9 t it ~~\ I L...- - . - - ---- -~=- --=" = f"1 '. I ~ ~ ,', i t ,^ j ::. ; i Ii U.l ! ,I." ,II'llli'\J' : =.\ :111 i1!l I! .! jll,' Ii "I I- I ~ ~d~" . I . . h I .!Ij ~ I~ f .8 ...:z: ~ ~I'I' 11111~ ..~ . , ~ I . , . J . '.. . . 0 ~ >---"" .::::::=:1 ~ 1 " I mIl; ~~ I ;" I~ r!l j' LI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J .J . JJI ~ 1 -.> , , , I !I 1 Go Ie. ::;1 ~ II=~ ,I ~ ~! ~ I =~~ --'I ~ j~ ~ ,~~ 1 I ,j ~ bL ,"I ~ Ii . -~ ~ ~ ~ ",' I ::;I! ~ -I 1\-+ --, r-~ "s ~ ~=~':J - .~~ 'n! ~) ~ ~ I I !i !i L J I II N' ilh .~ ,I I .I .I l I' It .. o ) - ---... _.: ,:" \\\\\\\\\\\ \\i .., '~~k\~~llf \ \\ \\ _.3 i i i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ s a . )l-',H \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i \~ \ ~ \ i ~ CI , \\ e----"--~==- .~.- .--- ~ 3 _ ~JF", 'iii,---. .." . ~ . I ~ t l ,n , 1. ~ . "UJ. ;, . I I I I: 'V " ~I tit Ill"! tI- el li\h~lill\i Hi fi \1 I! II I r"'l""T , I - r I _ l.. J f I I - 1.' ., :::' = ,15 , . 1 ~ ( .4 I.. -i f- I ~,-i ~ t:: I. i Ii ~ . \ . 1 I . r I ....1 F I F '_ 1_' ~ -::lttL-'15 . ::::1j::I~ ~____L_ ~:=== --l , , bLl s_ g G~ 5 Ole. I H.. ~ . 1 i r-+_L 1 f \'1 : ~ 11: r I ~ : 1'1 In ''!.I~.. ~ -1. - ~~ =:I~. , I , 'I . I - __i__ --+--' I . j I. ,- !i (911 ~~ ,Ie< dl f-f'~ -H I' , I ~ ~::::- (- __L ! ,--- __L , ~ -- .... I Ii .15 I !" \, ~ i-~~~ ' ___-l ___ LlIl . . r ~ -, ~- f: ~ ,1) '1,-.1 1 I li ! ,h.~ .1~5 i 11 r-J:::~ I .~! , I. -~:::i II ,'I ... ..... -...-- -.... l:-dOO ONla'AlO ,yn.LcBONOO -.- 'Y:)'Vff1CMMUel IllIdsOH .ln~.we.L S)IH '_D__ ."''"":'ii -..-... --- -...... -.- ~"=S5 -.- -....-":.."":!:.':!! -.- '"''"-_.~~~ -.- .AWii -. ..r~ - -..-.- ",,-==:g ~Ji] _"_~H~_.'" r'_-r&.~J: ~.~.1:L[~"'; --.._-"'..._--~ -'..- ~~== -.... . .... >~~~":':= ~~....;;;; _...:r....':II""..c="" . """---.--- -.:J=-,==::.r.=s-~ - -JiW'=.-;::o.n=I:.r=.: . ,,-...---- , .- -",U::._Jlf...",..'1I!S . _"_~"=JIf.....=+--__,", -~. ............ .' -3 -l!, - -..- -...--. - -..--. -M_li-ptr,a -- -- ~':'T"-=r_-:::::!:?~:: . .-:''==''':=:::-;:''~T~ . "'-.-""---" .. ... -.-----.-- .. -..---...-.... .. _'='.:.1:.':..-T.....t::::;:;:L..i:r: . --- .---....-,,-.-.--- ... - ..::=:===~':'=-_-r'=: .. .-- ",=-_=.=lJ".IRft:"J::="-:::"'i: ----.---====..:.:. "'~--==='::'."::=.:'.:r.~= .. _....-='.:I't.:o.-=:rJ".-:.~"LI:'.: .. __"2:.....c.~Jt5$ . \!: -'=I't'!S'!E:-~"="':': . -..,,:1::;::..:::;::::'::'::==., - -..:..~==:".:.:-..::.r=: . ~~=-._...~-~~. -_._...:=::I'~~~ ..-------. . -.- ----.-..-.......--.- . -----......--- ...-..-- .--. ~...:.r_~-= -------...-.....- . ...,_..._...._...:-:.:l:u. -- -----------= _J:n:s.:r":f:'"1If::: 1#=:E~=~..: -.- -..--..--.......-- -- "'''''_7_.._ -----."....-- -- ".M _"",._1 ------ -="....-====r..~...~ .. -:'-:"-=i.':.."3$ -=-"'='J~..:::r.:=....=.=.'ft,1.. _..=.-:='''::'''=~=~-==. "-~r-==.::...,..~:-:,!~=. ...-..-....---. ........:; .--.....-----..-- .. ---..-....--.--.- .. --- --.--::::--:.;:;; _._------;;..~..-"'. "MlUr_tII'~ --- ---..-. ._---':'&:"'.::-..:..-=-..:.-: . "~~~""'41.~~~..;;;. --- ---.--..-. --..-- -..---------.. . -- _.._--...-...........'I:.~7G . :=."={=-~~.:=-~ -:.~":':.,,~-..........~-;.-::F.!F.= .,;=.._"if_~"'If.:If'.....___ ........-=-~"=='..-=,:,:=.~ . .._-;:.=.:.:-~~T'.~--: ~mi:=:':::':':'-v....~ - -"---.-"-...=r-.:.'==l ....-=====-'!S:.;.,~..:..~..- _:.r.-..lII"...~"'E.t=':S..==r= .....-.::::.r=:=~:..-n==!.w-;:e ____........-v. .___.. .w___...._____. --......-.. __.."._"'......_.__. T __.._...:.."=:".::r..-=::.::= . .........---..------= . . , -- -.- ..._--~.._,,_.._,.=== C:-=-J..r."=ii!'*,,~':i;;.5 _.:'r_,"=",-="..:.'ftI:.-n=ZE' ..:i'.....~+~:ti!5::if"~ ':,==..":."tlI:"iI':'~'-"!'.--':''I: ;r,:~=::,":f.:'4'J,''''''':--_.''r-= _=-."=I::=':.:;::"'';'''::J:'",-:''' !.:= .- - .._-"--.__..._~ ...."........- __1lII_'1lJJi.__ -- -:::'-~1.l= ._"J:"J'.J::,::=r.."-=:=-~ " _W__J//tj-.wnr.: ,,-==:~=~:Z..::n:=t--lP. .. ---------- --,,_._-.._.._~. "-':.=:r...--........r. =:E..~. ..,,_..=:'.v-"~_...._''':I,.:;.:.. -.-...-"".--..-....- .. --- _..=....-1J!:"~ -.....-------..-.... - . -=.... ..."......................... =_-=-"':'=-"':""'..-:...":~,==",,..n .. --- __.. ._..=--=--=:=..=:te . _.::."'~~=-.:.."U.-=--=z --=-=-".~~~-,........~~:r-==== . _-='1:..ou:;.-=:'::'-===;li~=.:"':: . -- -..---......-..-..."'.....-.. . --- _,:""..:"..:.='z.5.:"'i"!'"".-=Ef.=.i . --r"__.......iii , , ( , ..,;..:."=".:.:: --.:=.~..o:=:~ ..._-,._.::f":'!f1....._-~:E= ......-...-...;;<Q;.--S;'''' = ...==....._ .. -\ 1"""7"_ .......-=-..::;,':.....-=,:,~,._...- ~ "--=:.o::..~,:.:.:F''''e ...:'_T-';m::.~~ -.---"'.----,,-= ..~~=~'-~-~,_.,."&~~ _.---....r.:-'""1"~..- -"...,--.=-~~=~.. "';=a..=:z:..a=r=~:=F..!:-= " l--.._.-=._~,.~.-._..'l'== . .......---.....-----= . _._-1iOi -- -.--...--.- ,,-.........._.H"'~,_.._--J= ..,,~==~;.Z~~..w.;.~.s -..-.-..,,---- -. =::.::::.1N.~=Z=.Gi "'-:<I"""--'---~E --_.._-"--~~... =J:.:=I:"t"::"~_=_~_v.r_= .._...__=...-'l-''':I~-:: ._,,_.._.,.....I_..___..~ ..--"--.--....... ..-..........- ____-a.._...ii# -- \ \ J;;..=-'"=="'='''===='=~ . ,,_. ..-..-------== "--"--."I!:I';V-' . ;"-"'=r.Ir.fllll=~...:"..&=': . ~~".._'=-~~_-:..,.&~~ . "~::J'1!!!a.!,!IJ:l":~.'ff.-~-""='I6= .._IIW'iV_:l.w;,.YI'I:,I~.=.._.. . --- '==.....~:70..'!:.,:... ..~;:,H__-u".n.Iii"......-:=:: . ___-=1-==r.:.~-:...,_:':=r.:..': . --- __"..._=-==:JE!io'.J'!o! . --""w_-'-'==IIE ~"'..f.ii.'f:;;':~L'limIr!TAi! ~~.u.-}n:;n__ .....r.r_=1==-""=..M.~ 1:__-;'-:;;~::.&c=:~ . -.---".w_...:r"o:S ,,~----.._.~~... ~4'~i!:~~'~~ ....._....,,~.-':'i=.==-'C,;u:,ft".:=:: -" ..- -. ,__.._....J:l.::II'J'ff","'CIU.1ft T . - ."''''--'---'''''-u..'If.I'r...: ..._..__lor.._._..~.. ~ . '- ~=:::,,-::=:;..,'"::.~:=;.:..-=s ...........",,- ___.......~......_....ii -- ,/ I; j . '" ~~ , . ;: !jl!:1 , I ~:~- 'i'" I ei I .~ "'l ~ :::tll3'~ i r ~ rli It ,. ","'. I' ~ .~.1 ~ ~al! t " I' I" i ! I I . '1/'1/ ~ !f " ,li:i! 0 f~"" ' '~! . ~~a !~ ~i.! ,.~ I ,f ! ! .; If "'~J !~_ . ~af I; ,,', ~f4~~~ j,i fi!e !'il : ,'I "'j" , , ! '~I I-I ,",,! ~.?'; 'i~~ ~" , , !' 'i I'" ,ili ',; ~~ r'ii~~ n'. " j ;.. 1''' <<~.. i Ill' . r ~ ~ "I ,!III!'~I' ~ I!l;: r ,~~"I ~'" j ~ i~ , Ii, i I I !;,i ' if. ~1'lii ~ lii; 1 :;> ~ri;~:\t;f ILmH !1'!i~;1 'I r~ -""I !! i I i'U~j:~ Ii :I!'; -: ::~i~R~ "'';:i.. :;" ~ li III ~1\1:.:111 i!ilils~S!1: ~~ ... ~ id,! Ii". liS !, Iii! . ~i~g;i!:~ III ~"';., t~~ "-~"'''.~ !'S~l~;~ Iir co CO ~ C\/ C") ~I~ t\ IE" -l!;'" ~ ~:i~ .,J ",,"~ ~ flli oq: l!;l!;", a.. S~ ~~~ ;::~ ~ ~ t-:: <', '. //...... "'- .."'-....... ....~ ~ ~I;" '.. \0-'" .. -'V~, . "''" +"k- f! ~~ "; .,. .~ ;;~*~ !/ , ~~" S;..~.li!1 , / ..:.. ~ '" '. "",nj..yv. " '~;'0\' J...'" , . \ I I , , . . ~~ -; Ii. " . "~. , ,. ~~ ". \~ .. ",\. ,. ! I . . i I , . . l~ . ..~ , ! ! 1; i ; ~ . ~ ~ Ii ~ 1:: ~ '1 ".!I h ;; II;:!!!!!;:!. Ii ! :.:::;;:: i :::::::::! : :u:::):.' ~ ~t~!;'~HB, ! ) l ~ j ) j j i I )' _......-""/1) .-) i: i ., : ~~~ ~,L,.: \ <\<'~':"=> '\'.!':.t.~~~ ~-~ ";'>J~ I "... '\, . .., -q.~ r... -..a~;;. -... i ~~ 9; "~~';",!li ~~ : "'.. ,,!~S <,;;~ ~- ~"'- .~ 'l;,.-~~ "- --;-,.- _lr~ ' ~.. ';\ s ~ , -0. ..\\ ". ,,'<II,.l ~'~. ". ,h\< ,~ .... Iii"i ~-:' .. /.!t ' ~' :i'~ I~ j~ Ii~ 'j.., '- " . ( ! '" . , .. \. '" ) !, " ~.. /'\_ iJ v' it.:,,, \ II _':'.. F ~~...:.1! t :. ~"'.~ " '1"r"'''' ~~.' ,,~d]\ .. : :.:llIJ~ l"~f>\ ..'" " ;1,"" ")1">, .. Ii ........"'" "'"__.,j ...........- 1 , 1r.1' Ji~ ' ;! ,I .. -_____'~:5 I! ""J ill . } .(~j,; 7.-t_\_ 1------:-..... " , ~ J... tiT;:":"'..... -'~--'i~ i ... > . I. W is i ~'i rl it :J! 'I' :". \t '. 'Ii I I ~! '" t. !i ""' 'Il" 'I' ~1 ~ /,; I >=> ~ I!! " .. <( ....00 ! g8 0 j; ~~ ~ I t=..j ~ Q: ~=:!~ OJ "IL., I , ! I I : i < <.: , ~ .. oi i , I oW I ' ; I ~ ; I( : I ~' , ~ ~i '5ai 0 i r' , ," I' ! I~ .. ;':II~ I on ".~l l' !k'(_ t- '. ~_Il! O'=' " . ~ I!I, j:. \: 'l;~ I!.i I ~~ F - "c. 2 ~!IH 8 J 5 I E" . (I. l!'---"'- ~ ~~j i.~ . l.r ~fr: 1"1"1 ..0 E ~ I'U: ~&i ! ~ tl z , tlld'l, BIll,i'!ill 1: ~ 0 ~'e~ ii!_ .d ~~ f-:J: I! ~Jtuli!J ;:s ~ ~ !. i'" 0; "' I ~l " I' " 0lJ i , 1 j (]J)' I.il:~i~ , "'~ ;i, "r,'I' -I if: 'lI[ !!! Ii I" w~ II 1k,' -II 1:: 1li1i Ii '1,,1 l:: ::~ . . -k.1'! +t~- , " ::Ii;, ,e , ""Il'! " li,["'\ i I: 'iiI'.. "I I', <'ll . ('i l'::,\\~! ill 'I:: :1:: : ~:: : Ii I "U'I'\ ,I! .".\ I ::~ I HF,- J ,':' I ,--- "- 'I,~ . :1;' ,j f i, 4-! :~! ~.: ,~ : III " i.: :i il :::, ii' I ~ I, 'I ", ' I ~ P \ : I: of:\ ,I 1'1\ 'I, {i '\!::: ,I 'I ,::'i'~ ,~:: ! Ii ! i,' 'I'" 't:::' ,itl' ! ,I 1,1/ :: ,:,t! If -,' "';'11 ! l:: .'N, 'i" f~ i!i'I':,fl:j! ,;: i :Ii .l il I ::1 Ij'l- 'i: 1"'1 ,I 'II ~ "Ii " 1, ':I! I. "I" I~,:: ..",! I' ,I, , , I t, 'II 1: Ii: !'I' I : .~ Ii! ~~ ,I \ .- .~ : II 'JI 'lit 'II ' 'I. i i ! l, li : tlll!l 'I'UI lr, HI, It"'l" If"~!i ~ l t .e J i... il-_ l! . .II ~ J .' lilll.,l,llJlj I III I", "f,llt!!! [Il!,t .1 ~: "',j1lltl!,1 llil! lHi,' IU I . 'I i 0> " 'h II p'l ..' i! 'I ". .., I : g !llii'I'I'lll!lII'j llb!l ~i!!1 l!fl'!'lllJ Ildlrl'II ; o. 1;'1 ! 'I' "If 1'1 I' '1- 'I l' I ~; tHtll"1 tltill ilHl1h' l!!jfi lll'lljl! , -. ,!1111 'I if" I f'l "l! '1.11 I , tl'll ~ ~ r h~ilim:li ri l. till! d:Ult! HUI i I III J , I ~ f I . . . " . 'I" ,11 I II , Ut. 'Ilb 1.,ll II t~l. ~!~ 'j !,!lllt 11'11 <I ,mil, IIJ , I ~ i ,II j ijili;t Iii ;'Ii If 1'1: III . !" I ~ll'!: Ii HI !III~ -_....._-~----.,... ......... ..~.... I , I I i I ....,.1, .1; ~~! I 2> , , ,/'\ , i' 'I"~ V.I ' '. I,., i,V " J ;~:; E~ >, ~, ,~~ 1:'- ~~ I" - ~!t i'ltli t~ .;~ ~~ It ~ l!~~ lr,i~~~ Mr,~!lti, ",I -.,.--- ..;=,., I / 81'~ --- "1 .. as 0 :.(1 l~ 'S"i .. HII ~ 0," ., "Do ~ a'" .~ ell ~ Ii! II ,m ..0 ~ ,:: 1-% i ~il / , ,!~ l t.~ I il 111 r i ~ ~ J 1- .. 1, ~ ., ! l.~. ~ ., , · ~ If C-_.. t F I! !!!ill~;\ ~ n ~ht 1 '~/\ -~ . ,. .- 'II""'~ ""'''wr . ~.l Ii!_ 1 . ~ II 11 4 tir I({ l{T;: li!i nlj RHwb. i I, L'" "'... ~I ! ~II ~ '1 : ill' ~ ~II j I i 0, [,-" l! "'. .,,,., ;; ~~ , ~, .... II a. iN l~ j 5 t'" ';'~~ ..~ i l!it "1 hll l t '," I < '-! ~ 3,~ -, lI. ~ ;1" ~I q~ II '~.' "', t, i~., '. '. ~I ., ',~",1. _ " ~liD' i "1 ,~'!' I ,~ ! f~' ;fl.:, ~..- . +1 i . " ,t' !i " ~tQ IlL. It I: A '1', :) t'i l, 0 Li ~ II r.~, 0 t'1,' . ~ CI 1 t ~ .. ~ ~ Gi~ w. iJ)' tH 'I i a ~:-. k ~, : -i'~ , l- I ,oj , ~ j~: ~1 1 ~. z :~ J" ~ii 1'1 4'1 '- f it ' I <If _.-;;;o.,..:~t. .~,.,....,_... ii: ;1, @ 7.~~y ~HpI;i!EET " < I If t"C'\ SPLIT RAIL FENCE 'd :-=,':;.1.:;'>--......--... ~ ~ -.. c__._~-.. -~ . ~'_""'.~lIOCU.P_ 1.Ol::<\TE>tllC:H.......,,,.......,..."'... lIl!L.ao<n.c"""_......... s._~~....o&L, ...Io<W'....__ ..~_.:--..(-,.."" -,....""'__"~I# ----....- 1.:u___ftIl.....IC<I."""'_ 1.-..11............... M~~ - f~"'>& ('zpl~ ~. 1'...--...':/ ~-.,.-.; ,-~ r........".... I ~ -- ~.r- .. t:f.\.iJIflf..OII[boIP.f\'PIft\9.e ~ DINING: COUl~TY ARD ~"'w"" ~ '1 ':'{'~f,< "l::~ii;:.';'"ll'- . : ~" ~,-. "'."",.., .. SECTION/ELEV A T\ON ~ i,.JA TER AND BOULDER ~9I<:TlC:"'. G>__.c__ .~ @u::oo__..._..... ~.~- @..._~<:clNCM'IIi OWXI!Ol"""-AT,.,'l1JII:1'O<X1< @,,---~ ~ ======- ~ I3IL,,~.=-~g ~ FEATURE VA..'....,. rn:_ =-.....~'""- "''''''"'-- ~'.,,"_..- ~::i" --. ~--- ~~"..,.,.::," ~~~_.....~ ~.__. ~--- ~~;" HI<S Temecula Hoapltal Temecula. CA. i..::.::,::..R:::.::.....1 1'_____- I ~w_~__ ~~! , 8m.ooo et'~ 1_ -'1 -~-T ~ Ii 'I 5 . 'Lc:j, t--~~-' - ... --.'-!....!!!! ~ on....La L2.2 '! i~~'~(l ' , I 'j I . ;, II I, "'11, I I ,lI II I r.::.\IIIII'li I' h' 11'1; 'I CI.:....llIl I II II . it , .l '9 ~j ~ L - lit i I'i I I h..!llil , - /---.---- /-, . --, .I~ .:-J ! I :l~' ':1. II :~ I I~ ~ I .~ i ,'4~;L ~' , "II ;3 '1 i i ~~. ~ l ( ,^ ~ ~ I II ~J. d . '.! I ,Ii I j ,I' .; ~ I 2) ll~ii~i Ii :i Ii Ii ~ ~ ~ III 11111 J ! I "'.: 'i ,N I ...1 ,,:...,t l~ ~~aJl, ''-1-\ 'I;~ II , ! i . I 1.1 h II I i I !I, II 1.1 it Ii II :11111. r II tillllU '. ,. ,. .. ~ II, I I I _ ~ ~h, I I I I .iL , . I i Ii II ..,' ~ 1:: I I Ill! I III. I!;;r .1 lUll H,lllU ,j,oI ;11. I I I I .. tl I i I ,. . . II, II! !II, 'I d I , I J 1.1 I.l , 1.1 i . .lllllIllll " f' III 1IIIlIl i tilllll Iii . , , ,'U .~ Ii, I I I I ilL Z hi I I I I i fhl I I I t .d '".L I ~ . '~" to: --===='7~...' " '<~:~'~:.".~'?~~: Southwest View Temecula Regional Medical Center 1 Noveml3er 2004 TemecUa. CaIlfomla Universal Heatlh services HI<S ... ~ Entry Close-up (with canopy removed) I I I I o .. 11ft ( ._-. l LI9" Southwest View Temecula Regional Medical Center 1 Novomber 2004 Temecula, California Universal HeaUh Services HI<S ~ '" ~ '8 u " " .. 'S "- .. \ , .. 9 li ! ~ ~ ! ! l\ " t " . ! ~ !l .. li 1 1 ~ " ~ . u ~ ! ~ .. i .. ~ ~ ~ en _lg ,^ c:: .}!J .~ -, \ ::;: ~ _..~ ..... iii -",- 'l :g .~ Oi '" 0- Ol o :I: "0 II. ~ ~ E . u %~ Ql % () . Oi '" o " ~ \ ::;; " Oi c:: .s '" !t 1 ~. ~~ >; 0 <r . i" c . E . " \ m . Ji <0 . 0 i" " c . ~ . ! ~ ~ g 'il ~ " u . c ~ c .. ~ * . ~ ;, ! ;, <; " E .. ;, ~ . <; * - 8 " . Ql l' E ~ - . c: '" ~ ;, Ql ~ " 0 = . ~ . . ~ 'iil " ~ 0 ~ ;, '5 .~ . Ql ~ :; " OJ c: N 0 ;, '0> . <; Ql E " , a: c g . .. .. ~ :; " i g >I 0: E ~ ;, ~ E ~ I' .:l " '\~ . - (/) (J) _~ <> c: . .2 ;; V ca -!! i :;= i; _..~ .J- ill _0_ Ol c: :2 'S <D ]i -0. <Jl o :I: c o i Ui W <0 ~ E ~ . " S>IH ---" SMaIA flUIPllna - M:lfAlfS~..~ iIll.l.lOjpo"~ J91lU10 llIa,peW /lIUOj6111:/lfltlallWlIl ~ II) :> Ol c: :g "5 (II i (/) I~ I I ;; ~ I ~ i ii :I! (,J " - . -g i ::;:; " iiI c: o '0. .. t a: ,e ~ ij ~ f ~ .~ "","'6~11'~ ."",,\IQ'~ J&\U90 ~\P8W \9U0j68tl 9\f\Q8\l,18l ;)\\4 - - ~JWQ~~1: ;1f\9\{\ 6U\P\lI1Q c c ~ -Ii ~ 0 0 .. .. 0 .. .. ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ill ill > < I CD -. ~ t;; iIi _..~ 0 ~ OJ '" c: :2 ':; m ~ 8 . (ij 0 I" '5l " j ::< - CD gj .c a. J ~ ~ I CD c CD I 0 (ij 0 I 'ti CD " ::< c ::> (ij ~ c: 0 :;; " 'g> . It c l c a: i 0 J 0 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1! o s ~ ill j € j I t;; ,]j ,fi 0 -'I z East elevation North Elevation Temecula Regional Medical Center Temecula, CaRtomIa Universal Health Services South Elevation West Elevation Phase 2 Medical OfficeBuilding Elevations I I I I ~ . 11 :IlII 16 JwnI 20lM HI<S a~ U) c 'ie 0 " ~ 0 " lu> ! 0 ~-&~'(/) w" i> t;l ~i in ~ g 'V '8 " .. -. i - S" ~ ~ ~ __ J: ~ '" ~ ill . t c F uJ _..~ .. (3 " ~ ~ U) ~ U) '" '" " 0 C - Q; u:: 0 c l3 II . on . F ~ ]; 8 i I 1 ,. F S 1 E en "" 00 I; lli ~ ill~ " l . U I F ~ ! '! p i ~- '@ .- ~.... go ;; a: '0 c ., .. ~ g " o 1ii a 13 " '" .. ~ i I I; 'm ;l\ I i o , "3 :l: il 10 a g. a: 1 ~ .3 ~ ~ E ~ ~ {! !_ II! "I J'I I, ~I.L!jlllli ~ 2) ~!lIllilllj fij Iii III ~l! 111 I is ~ J. .1, ii J II ~l I II Go I~~ JJI ; I! t id ,~ I '"'' I !! ! ! I Lr,,__ I ~ I~. '~.--.! ~' I II, ~" \\ I' " , " I:: N . Ii: \; . 18 i I r, f- I \ \ ~, ~\x. 0 '; D\\ ~f \~~ \---.---' ~ '~\\ ' . -\\;~.---.~. ',\\ '" -- 1',i.II!!IIII"II,h'L hIlt' 11111.11 bill" II! I!I!I ~ :1'1'1'" .Ii iilil ~ :tio,". , .. I , I I r """ -..-.. -- ATTACHMENT NO.3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-_ (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) G;\Planning\2007\PA07.0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 30 PC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05- 0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals and Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application Numbers 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 Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (the "Project"). The Project contemplates a maximum building height of 115 feet, 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 parcel map. B. The Planning Commission initially 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 regarding this matter. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\EIR RESOLUTION NO.doc C. The Planning Commission, based in part on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. D. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the Authority and principal responsibility for approving the Project. F. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was issued on August 3, 2005, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082. G. 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 EIR. H. The 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. I. 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. J. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft EIR 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. . K. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR 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 at the City's library and made copies available for review at City offices. L. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received eighteen (18) 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). M. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all comments on and before November 22, 2005, including those received G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\EIR RESOLUTION NO.doc after the end of the public review period. Responses to public agency commentators were provided on or before November 12, 2005. N. On April 6, 2005, April 20, 2005, November 16, 2005, and January 5, 2006 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft EIR. O. On January 24, 2006, the City Council of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft EIR. P. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of proceedings, including testimony received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959- 080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." Q. Two lawsuits were timely filed seeking to set aside the certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Project by the City Council of the City of Temecula. The lawsuit filed by Petitioners California Nurses Association (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 445394) was filed on February 24, 2006. The second suit, by Petitioners Citizens Against Noise and Traffic (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 445411), was filed on February 24, 2006. R. On April 6, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including, without limitation, its certification of the Final EIR and all related approvals and permits. In its Order, the Court concluded that the EIR failed to adequately address the construction noise impacts, siren noise impacts and mitigation measures for traffic impacts, and did not address potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes potentially generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site and generate unhealthful gas vapors. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\EIR RESOLUTION NO.doc S. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. T. UHS and the City sought clarification of the Court's judgment in the matter, and on August 22, 2007, the Court issued an order stating that its order "only includes those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA." The Court clarified that to comply with the order, the City need complete further and sufficient CEQA analysis in only the areas of 1) analysis of MTBE Plume, 2) siren noise, 3) construction ,noise, 4) direct traffic impacts, and 5) cumulative traffic impacts. U. In response to the Court's order, the City commenced preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to address the issues identified in the Court's order. V. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on July 6, 2007 and requested those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project to describe that authority and to identify additional relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Six entities submitted comments in response to the NOP. W. On July 12, 2007, a scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. X. On or about November 5, 2007 the State Office of Planning and Research approved a 30-day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital SEIR 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. Y. Therefore, upon completion of the SEIR dated November 5,2007, the City initiated a 30-day public comment period and circulated the SEIR for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. The City received three comment letters consisting of a substantive comment from the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control, a letter from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research summarizing the review process from the State's perspective, and a letter from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District stating that the District had no comments. Reponses to each of the comment letters were prepared, and none of the comments raised any issues that would require recirculation of the SEIR. Z. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the SEIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEJR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\EIR RESOLUTION NO.doc 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. AA. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines require 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. BB. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section III of this resolution. CC. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as potentially significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section IV of this Resolution. DD. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Exhibit A, Section V of this Resolution. EE. A discussion of the Project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B of this 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. FF. 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. The recommendation to the City Council as set forth in this resolution, and findings contained herein reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and are 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 SEIR under CEQA require G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\EIR RESOLUTION NO.doc additional public review because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. Section 2. Recommendation to the Citv Council. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, California, hereby recommends that the City Council for the City of Ternecula certify the Supplemental Environmentallrnpact Report, adopt findings pursuant to the California Environrnental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progam as set forth in Exhibit A, Draft City Council Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\PJanning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\EIR RESOLUTION NO.doc Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 9th day of January, 2008. , 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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of January 2008, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\EIR RESOLUTION NO.doc City Council CEQA Resolution The draft City Council Resolution for the certification of the Supplemental EIR was being edited at the time the Planning Commission Agenda Package went to print. The revised City Council SEIR Resolution will be provided under separate cover prior to the Planning Commission hearing on January 9, 2008. However, the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which are attached to the draft City Council Resolution for the certification of the Supplemental EIR have been included in the Planning Commission packet as Attachment 3, Exhibit A, Exhibit 8, and Exhibit C. EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.1 Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project and related actions (the "Project"), as more fully described in the EIR. These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the Supplemental EIR and all of its contents, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Supplemental EIR, and staff and consultants' reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. II. Proiect Obiectives. As set forth in the Supplemental EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula and the Project Applicant seek to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: City's Objectives: A. Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. B. Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medial offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility. C. Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services. ] Cal. Pub. Res. Code S 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. S 15091. D. Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base. E. 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. F. Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of nose, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Applicant Objectives: A. Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. B. Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices. C. 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 directors. D. Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Sionificant With Mitioation in the Suoolemental EIR. The Supplemental EIR found that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation with respect to the alleged methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plume. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for the MTBE plume based on the more expansive discussion in the Supplemental EIR. A. Hazards a. MTBE Plume The Supplemental EIR examines the potential risk arising from plumes of MTBE in groundwater caused by leaking underground storage tanks at three nearby service stations. Although the groundwater would not be used for drinking, a potential risk to workers and visitors arises from potential toxic vapors that might migrate upward if the MTBE plume migrated under the proposed hospital site. 1. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. Specifically the following mitigation measures have been imposed upon the Project, to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Petroleum affected soils at the proposed hospital site if any, (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered) shall be segregated, stockpiled on-site, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate facility, as required by the respective disposal facility. All contaminated soils shall be disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating the transport and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. These materials shall be transported to a permitted disposal facility by a licensed waste hauler. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to issuance of any encroachment permit for the Project, a detailed soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling program shall be conducted for the proposed hospital site. Any identified MTBE or other vac impacted soil shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations during demolition of structures. The Project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests, sampling, and soil monitoring text results) to the City of Temecula showing that abatement of any MTBE or other VOC containing soil identified in the Project site has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies). 2. Facts in Support of Findings No detectable concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) or MTBE were found in vapor beneath the proposed hospital site buildings, and thus there is a less than significant risk of exposure resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a less than significant related human health risk. MTBE bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed hospital site along the southern boundary. Nevertheless, there is a less than significant related human health risk due to the possible presence of MTBE bearing groundwater beneath the proposed hospital site. The Project site is located within 1,000 feet of three former gasoline stations. These gasoline stations experienced leaking underground storage tanks (UST). Groundwater monitoring has occurred regularly since 2001 in response to the leaking USTs. Chevron Station No. 204029 is located approximately 200 feet southeast of the Project site and has six groundwater monitoring wells. Monitoring and remediation of the Chevron site is under the active jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The maximum concentration of MTBE reported at the site was a concentration of 1,400 micrograms per liter, and the maximum concentration of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) reported was 420 micrograms per liter. On January 24, 2007, groundwater was sampled at the Chevron site. The reported concentrations of MTBE at two well locations were 11 micrograms per liter at a well 300 feet southeast of the Project site, and 4 micrograms per liter at a well 255 feet southeast of the Project site. No other Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were detectable at this facility. Based on the Project site's gradient, the direction of groundwater flows, and the low levels of MTBE detected, the likelihood that MTBE from the Chevron facility has migrated onto the Project site is very low. This opinion was corroborated by groundwater sampling conducted at the Project site in 2006, which did not detect MTBE in groundwater samples downgradient from the Chevron release. Further, the October 2005 Holguin Fahan & Associates report concluded that "MTBE concentrations are consistent with the historic levels and show a general overall concentration downward trend." Thus the concentrations identified above are likely to continue to decrease due to the ongoing remediation activities at the Chevron site. Based on the reported gradient and the proposed Project's proximity to the Chevron release, it is possible that MTBE impacted groundwater has migrated onto the Project site, however, MTBE was not detected in any current groundwater samples collected from borings at the Project. A Shell station is located approximately 840 feet east / southeast of the Project site. In September 2001, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the facility to investigate possible impacts to soil and groundwater by on-site USTs. Monitoring and remediation of the Shell site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. In response to detection of MTBE in 2001 and subsequent assessments, 32 groundwater monitoring wells at downgradient locations and a thirty-five cone penetration test location were installed. Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling has been conducted at the facility since 2001. Remedial action was taken in the form of groundwater extractions between May 2002 and June 2003, resulting in the extraction of a reported 1.6 million gallons of groundwater. Between May 2003 and November 2004, three groundwater extraction wells and two groundwater injection wells were installed west of the facility as a groundwater remediation system to minimize contaminant migration and to capture and treat petroleum hydrocarbons migrating in the groundwater from the facility. The groundwater remediation was in use at the facility from July 2004 to August 2006, at which time the system was taken off-line due to the reduction of MTBE in the Shell station's groundwater monitoring wells network. No evidence has suggested that there is any "rebound" in contamination levels. Nonetheless, based on reported groundwater gradient in the shallow groundwater regime and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater has the potential to be migrating onto the Project site at very low concentrations even though MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from borings on the hospital site that are downgradient from the Shell release. An Arco service station (No. 5695) is located approximately 240 feet east of the proposed hospital site. Monitoring and remediation of the Arco site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego Water Quality Control Board. In 2002 a remediation system consisting of groundwater extraction pumps was installed. In June 2003 three groundwater injection wells were installed along Dartola Road, which abuts the eastern edge of the Project site. Since the third quarter of 2003 groundwater pumped from the proposed hospital site remediation system has been treated and then reinjected using the three groundwater injection wells. These activities minimized contaminant migration onto the Project site. Nonetheless, reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results suggest that MTBE impacted groundwater is likely to be migrating towards the proposed hospital site as a result of the Arco release. However, MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from soil borings B10 at the Project site, which is downgradient from the Arco release. Ir January 2006, a soil vapor survey was preformed in order to assess the possible presence and concentration BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, total xylenes) and MTBE in the subsurface soil vapor in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings at the proposed hospital site. Soil vapor samples were collected from seven locations within the footprint of the proposed buildings. Three additional sampling locations were located in the southwest portion of the proposed hospital site in an attempt to intercept any off-site MTBE groundwater plume that may have been intruding onto the Project site. The samples collected reported no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory detection limits. In July 2006, ten groundwater sampling locations were bored in the vicinity of the Project site and in places most likely to intercept migrating MTBE contaminated water. Samples were taken and analyzed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 8260B. MTBE was detected in groundwater at boring B5 at a concentration of 1.3 migrograms per liter, which was the only boring to have any detectable vac concentration. In July 2007 SCS Engineers assessed the Project site to evaluate shallow subsurface soil vapor. SCS Engineers conducted a soil vapor survey on July 16 and 18, 2007. Soil vapor samples were collected from 14 locations within the proposed Project site. Additional soil vapor samples were taken on August 21 and 24, 2007. The soil vapor samples were collected in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) guidelines. As set forth in the Supplemental EIR, No MTBE or any other analytes were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. The SEIR analyzes the potential health risk associated with potential groundwater and soil vapor issues. Various scenarios were studied using the DTSC Screening-level Model for Groundwater Contamination. Conservative assumptions were used, such as the unrealistic but conservative assumption that MTBE concentrations in groundwater would uniform across the proposed hospital site. Assuming that the highest reported concentration of MTBE of 97 micrograms per liter from 2006 (which was measured to be reduced to 55 migrograms per liter in that sample from April 2007), and conservative exposure assumptions, the DTSC model indicated a less than significant cancer risk of almost one order of magnitude below the typical risk threshold. The risk of non-cancer health effects is also less than significant. Other scenarios considered 1.3 micrograms per liter as the highest concentration potentially migrating from the east, which concludes even lower levels of risk under the DTSC model. Based on the information set forth in the SEIR and the various technical sampling, analysis and modeling, the City Council finds that even assuming unrealistic worst case contamination from sampling, health risks are less than significant. Further, concentrations levels are likely to continue to decline and become even less significant due to the ongoing remediation efforts at each of the three service stations, which are being overseen by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the foregoing mitigation measures are proposed to further ensure that no significant impacts will result from the construction or operation of the Project. Notwithstanding this less than significant hazardous impact, Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 will be implemented by the project applicant to ensure the impact remains less than significant. Thus, if MTBE or VOCs are detected in groundwater and vapor beneath the proposed hospital site buildings during construction, any contaminated soils shall be handled and disposed of in compliance with any local, State, and Federal regulations. Further, if any such contaminated soils and or MTBE/VOC impacted soil is discovered during construction or prior to construction, applicable mitigation will be implemented to address each discovery and reduce any health risks to acceptable levels. With the implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the impact will continue to be less than significant. IV. Environmental Effects that Remain Sianificant and Unavoidable After Mitiaation In the areas of noise and traffic, there are instances where environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. These areas are discussed below. A. Noise. The proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable noise impacts for: a. Construction Noise 1. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Supplemental EIR. Mitigation includes: Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The following measures shall be considered in the Project's design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: i. 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. ii. Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. iii. All construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. iv. Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. v. The Project proponent will hire a noise monitor to accept complaints and confirm compliance with above-mentioned mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1(a): The following measures shall be required by the contractor of the Project in order to mitigate the significant impacts: vi. Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. vii. In order to minimize the time during which any single noise- sensitive receptor is exposed to construction noise, construction shall be completed as rapidly as possible. viii. The quietest construction equipment owned by the contractor shall be used. The use of electric powered equipment is typically quieter than diesel, and hydraulic powered equipment is quieter than pneumatic power. If compressors powered by diesel or gasoline engines are to be used, they shall be contained or have baffles to help abate noise levels. ix. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained. Poor maintenance of equipment typically causes excessive noise levels. x. Noisy equipment shall be operated only when necessary, and shall be switched off when not in use. xi. Storage areas shall be located away from sensitive receptors. Where this is not possible, the storage of waste materials, earth, and other supplies shall be positioned in a manner that will function as a noise barrier to the closest sensitive receivers. xii. Public notice shall be given prior to construction identifying the location and dates of construction, the name and phone number of the contractor's contact person in case of complaints, and the name and phone number of a contact person at the City of Temecula in case of complaints. The public notice shall encourage the residents to call the contractor's contact person and/or the City's contact person rather than the police in case of complaint. Residents shall also be kept informed of any changes to the schedule. The contractor's designated contact person shall be on site throughout project construction with a mobile phone. If a complaint is received, the contractor's contact person and/or the City's contact person shall take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. If possible, a member of the contractor's team shall also travel to the complainant's location to understand the nature of the disturbance. 2. Facts in Support of Findings Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City's ordinance limiting the hours of construction provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB. This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the Project site. With implementation of the mitigation measure, the construction noise levels would be reduced, but even with this mitigation measure the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed Project site. b. Siren Noise 1. Findings Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Specifically, noise standards that can be enforced through a mitigation measure do not apply in emergency situations and the social utility of loud sirens to make way for emergency vehicles leads to the conclusion that no mitigation measures are feasible. 2. Facts in Support of Findings Traffic noise impacts generated by the proposed Project would be less than significant. When ambulance siren noise is added to the equation, traffic noise generated by the proposed Project would be considered a significant impact. Ambulance siren noise would increase CNEL by more than 3 dB. Also, residents along emergency routes would be exposed to unmitigated maximum noise levels of about 94 to 117.5 dB(A) from ambulance sirens. However, the City does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations and sirens are needed in order to increase speed and efficiency in transporting those in some need of medical treatment to hospitals so as to increase the possibility of effective treatment. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, the need for loud sirens to improve emergency transportation efficiency leads to the conclusion that no mitigation measures can or should be placed on this type of noise. B. Traffic Impacts Based on the established significance criteria, the following significant impacts were calculated: a. Direct Project Impacts Impact 3.3-1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road. This is a direct impact because with the addition of Project Phase II traffic this segment deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E. Impact 3.3-2: Highway 79 I Country Glen Way (Project driveway). This is a direct impact since this intersection is the main Project driveway and the Project is responsible for providing the north leg of this intersection, which does not exist currently and will serve as the Project access. 1. Findings i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Supplemental EIR. Specifically, as more fully discussed in the Supplemental EIR, there are a number of planned infrastructure improvements under way which will be partially funded by the Project applicant through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), City of Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF), the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and the Project's location in an assessment district and/or Community Facilities District. To the extent that the improvements have not been completed by others, the hospital must complete those improvements before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as provided for in the various mitigation measures. The following mitigation measures address the Project's direct impacts: Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Traffic Signal Coordination - SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South/Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination - Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road". The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula building permit. Should the entire CIP funding not be in place at the time of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase lA, the applicant shall fund the traffic signal coordination and establish a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula to be reimbursed for expenditures made on behalf of the City. However, at this time, the CIP calls for completion of the improvement in the Year 2008. In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, the Project proposes three access driveways, two on SR 79 and one on De Portola Road. The following improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City of Temecula in order to mitigate impacts of the new access driveways, on existing transportation facilities: Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: i. Driveway #1 on SR 79: Driveway #1 on SR 79 is the fourth (north) leg of the SR 79/Country Glen Way. This intersection is currently a signalized T-intersection. Modification of the current signal has already been completed to accommodate the fourth leg serving the Project site and other related changes to geometry. The project shall provide the following additional intersection geometry: ii. A dedicated westbound right-turn lane on SR 79. iii. Dual eastbound left-turn lanes on SR 79, and dual left-turn lanes and a shared through/right-turn lane in the southbound direction exiting the Project site. iv. Driveway #2 on SR 79: Driveway #2 on SR 79 shall be located at the west boundary of the property and will provide unsignalized right in/right-out only access. This 40-foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. v. Driveway #3 on De Portola Road: Driveway #3 on De Portola Road will provide unsignalized right-in/right-out and left-in only access. Left-turns out of the hospital shall be prohibited. This 40-foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. vi. The hospital and other related buildings are located approximately in the center of the site, surrounded by parking. An adequate internal roadway system shall be provided to access each facility and to provide adequate parking. b. There are no feasible mitigation measures beyond 3.3-1 through 3.3-2 that would reduce the direct traffic impacts because no other Project specific improvements would address the primarily regional circulation improvements necessary to address impacts, many of which cannot be accommodated due to the fact that the area is nearly built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained, as discussed more fully in the discussion of cumulative impacts below. 2. Facts in Support of Findings: As noted above, the Project is found to have direct significant impacts at two intersections with the construction of Phase 2 of the Project. Impact 3.3-1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road (Phase 2 Specific). As indicated in the Supplemental EIR, the roadway segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road under existing conditions operates at LOS C with a v/c ratio of 0.724. On Project Opening Day Without the Project which consists of Existing Conditions plus a 3% ambient grow1h rate for three years, the LOS level will remain at C with a v/c ratio of 0.789. According to the significance thresholds articulated in the Supplemental EIR, a project impact is considered significant if there is an increase in the v/c ratio on a roadway segment greater than two percent. Further, the significant impact is considered direct if the Project causes a reduction in the LOS to below D. With the addition of phase two of the Project, this roadway segment goes from a v/c ratio of 0.789 on Opening Day to a v/c ratio of 0.906, an increase of well over 2 percent. Further, with this increase in v/c ratio, the roadway segment will operate at LOS E resulting in a direct project specific significant impact. With the addition of the cumulative impact noted below, this highway segment will be reduced even further to LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.530. In an effort to reduce this impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 has been required which will mandate traffic signal coordination efforts on Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road. With the implementation of this measure, the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.3-2: Highway 79 1 Country Glen Way (Project Driveway) (Phase 2 Specific). As indicated in the Supplemental EIR, the Highway 79, Country Glen Way intersection currently operates at LOS A in the A.M. peak hour, and at LOS B during the P.M. peak hour with a 5.0 second per vehicle delay for the A.M. peak hour and a 10.1 second per vehicle delay in the P.M. peak hour. This delay increases slightly at Project Opening Day Without the Project to a 5.2 second per vehicle delay in the A.M. peak hour and a 11.1 second per vehicle delay in the P.M. peak hour with the LOS levels remaining the same. As articulated in the Supplemental EIR, a significant impact will result for intersections if the increase in the delay caused by the Project at the intersection is greater than 2 seconds, and will be direct if the Project causes a reduction in LOS to below level D. With the addition of the Project the delay increases to 22.9 second per vehicle for the A.M. peak hour and 34.1 seconds per vehicle for the P.M. peak hour with the LOS levels both at level C. Although this increase in delay does not constitute a significant impact, this impact is still considered to be a direct project impact because if not for the project the improvements required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 would not be required. b. Cumulative Impacts Impact 3.3-3: SR 79/1-15 SB Ramps Impact 3.3-4: SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps Impact 3.3-5: SR 79 1 La Paz St Impact 3.3-6: SR 79 1 Pechanga Pkwy Impact 3.3-7: SR 79 1 Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 1 Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 ICountry Glen Way; SR 79 1 Redhawk Pkwy J Margarita Road Impact 3.3-8: SR 79 1 Avenida De Missiones Impact 3.3-9: SR 79 1 Country Glen Way Impact 3.3-10: SR 791 Redhawk Pkwy 1 Margarita Rd Impact 3.3-11: SR 79 West of 1-15 Impact 3.3-12: SR 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway Impact 3.3-13: SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road Impact 3.3-14: SR 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road Impact 3.3-15: Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Impact 3.3-16: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 Impact 3.3-17: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 1. Findings i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Supplemental EIR. Specifically, as more fully discussed in the Supplemental EIR, there are a number of planned infrastructure improvements under way which will be partially funded by the Project applicant through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), City of Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF), the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and the Project's location in an assessment district and/or Community Facilities District. To the extent that the improvements have not been completed by others, the hospital must complete those improvements before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as provided for in the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 SR 79 / 1-15 Southbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: SR 79 /1-15 Northbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15/ State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the Project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds, and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: SR 79 / La Paz St City of Temecula CIP entitled "Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway", which will add a fourth through lane in each direction on SR 79 through La Paz Street shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other Projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, and construction is expected to occur in 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Intersection of SR 79 1 Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula CIP entitled "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway - Dual Right- Turn Lanes", which will add a second eastbound right-turn lane on SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program and SB 621 Funds, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: SR 79 1 Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 1 Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 1 Country Glen Way; SR 79 1 Redhawk Pkwy 1 Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South 1 Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination - Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road" shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. This Project will improve the signal coordination along SR 79, including the SR 79 1 Jedediah Smith Road, SR 79 1 Avenida De Missiones and SR 79 1 Redhawk Pkwy 1 Margarita Road intersections, which will improve traffic flow through these intersections. In addition, the Project shall construct lane geometry improvements and modify the existing traffic signal at the main Project driveway, prior to Project operation. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 City of Temecula CIP for fiscal Years 2007-2011 entitled "Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase II" - Public Works Account No. 210.165.668, shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: This Project will add the third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions. Funding is secured through DIF fees, CFD (Wolf Creek), Public Lands and Highway Program, Pechanga Tribe contributions and Rancho California Water District funding, and construction is scheduled between 2007 and 2011. Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79. Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right-of-way for additional circulation system improvements along this segment. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however, the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79. The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula encroachment permit. Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the right-of- way along this segment. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right-of-way for additional circulation system improvements. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the futu re. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency that has adopted, or can and should adopt such changes. More specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 and Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 require coordination with Caltrans and are found potentially to be infeasible because ultimately they are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not within the City of Temecula. Although it is expected that these mitigations measures would be implemented by 2011, the City cannot guarantee that this will occur. 3. There are no feasible mitigation measures beyond 3.3-3 through 3.3-10 that would reduce the cumulative traffic impacts because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained. b. Facts in Support of Findings As noted above, there will be significant cumulative impacts. The Eastern Bypass, which is discussed in detail in the SEIR, is expected to eliminate all significant project and cumulative impacts detailed below, with the exception of Impact 3.3-1,3.3-13 and 3.3-14. However, because the timeframe for the construction of the Eastern Bypass is expected to be 2025, it was not considered in the analysis at this time because completion is expected too far in the future and thus is unduly speculative. As a result, all of the following impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.3-3: SR 79/1-15 SB Ramps Under existing conditions, the SR 79/1-15 SB Ramp will operate at LOS C with a delay of 32.2 seconds per vehicle in the A.M. peak hour, and LOS D with a delay of 37.5 seconds per vehicle in the P.M. Peak Hour. On Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level during the A.M. peak hour decreases to D with a 40.6 second per vehicle delay and increases to E with a 56.9 second per vehicle delay during the P.M. peak hour. Because the P.M. intersection is already below D before the addition of the Project, and the increase in delay is greater than 2 seconds between existing conditions and Opening Day Without the Project, this impact is considered to be a cumulative impact without the Project. With the addition of the Project and other cumulative projects, the LOS levels decrease to level F for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour with a 121.9 second per vehicle delay in the A.M. and a 224.3 second per vehicle delay in the P.M. With the implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-3 which will add lanes to the southbound ramp at the interchange and should be substantially underway through design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, the LOS levels for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour will remain the same, but the delay will be reduced. During the A.M. peak hour period the delay will be reduced to 84.5 seconds per vehicle delay, and to 160.9 seconds per vehicle delay during the P.M. peak period. Because the ability to add lanes to the southbound ramp requires coordination with Caltrans, mitigation measure 3.3-3 is deemed infeasible because the responsibility for the southbound ramps is that of another agency and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable. Impact 3.3-4: SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps Under existing conditions, the SR 79/1-15 NB Ramp will operate at LOS B with a delay of 12.0 seconds per vehicle in the A.M. peak hour, and LOS C with a delay of 34.0 seconds per vehicle in the P.M. Peak Hour. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level for the A.M. peak hour will remain the same, but will decrease to LOS E for the P.M. peak hour with a 14.6 second per vehicle delay in the A.M. peak hour and 63.1 second per vehicle delay in the P.M. peak hour. Because the P.M. peak hour is already below D before the addition of the Project, and the increase in delay is greater than 2 seconds, this impact is considered to be a cumulative impact without the project. With the addition of the Project and cumulative projects, the LOS levels are reduced to LOS F with an 80.9 seconds per vehicle delay in the A.M. Peak hour and LOS F with 298.2 second delay per vehicle in the P.M. peak hour. With the implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-4, which will add lanes to the northbound ramp at the interchange and should be substantially underway through design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, the LOS levels for the A.M. hour will change to LOS Band for the P.M. peak hour to LOS E. The delay will also be reduced with the A.M. peak hour at 19.0 seconds, and the P.M. peak hour at 70.4 seconds. Because the ability to add lanes to the northbound ramp requires coordination with Caltrans, mitigation measure 3.3-4 is deemed infeasible because the responsibility for the northbound ramps is that of another agency and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable. Impact 3.3-5: SR 79 1 La Paz St The Highway 79 and La Paz Street intersection currently operates at LOS B during the A.M. peak period with a 13.3 second per vehicle delay, while during the P.M. peak period it operates at LOS C with a 27.4 second per vehicle delay. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level for the A.M. peak hour remains the same with the delay increasing to 16.3 seconds per vehicle. During the P.M. peak hour the LOS level decreases to level E with a 58.5 second per vehicle delay. With the addition of the project and cumulative projects in the area, the LOS levels decrease to F during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour period with a 163.6 second per vehicle delay in the A.M. peak hour and a 318.5 second per vehicle delay in the P.M. peak hour. Thus, both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 will add a fourth through lane in each direction on Highway 79 through La Paz Street. This addition of a fourth lane should be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not completed by other project applicants prior to this time, the responsibility to finish construction will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services to complete, subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. With the addition of this Mitigation Measure the intersection will operate at LOS D with a 40.7 second per vehicle delay in the A.M. period and remain at LOS F with an 86.9 second per vehicle delay during the P.M. peak hour. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3,3-5 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained. Thus, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. Impact 3.3-6: SR 79 1 Pechanga Pkwy The Highway 79 and Pechanga Parkway intersection currently operates at LOS C with a 23.3 second per vehicle delay during the A.M. peak hour period, and at LOS E with a 73.9 second per vehicle delay during the P.M. peak hour period. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the A.M. peak hour LOS level will remain the same with an increase in delay to 26.6 seconds per vehicle. During the P.M. peak hour the LOS level degrades to level F with a 109.7 second per vehicle delay. Because the P.M. intersection is already below D before the addition of the Project, and the increase in delay is greater than 2 seconds, this impact is considered to be a cumulative impact without the Project. With the addition of the Project and the cumulative projects in the area, the LOS levels degrade to LOS F during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour period with a 125.0 second per vehicle delay during the A.M. and a 517.2 second delay during the P.M. peak hour period. The Supplemental EIR proposes Mitigation Measure 3.3-6, which will add a second eastbound right-turn lane on Highway 79 at Pechanga Parkway. This second eastbound lane should be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finish construction will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. However, even with the imposition of this mitigation measure, the cumulatively significant impact will remain significant and unavoidable as the LOS level will remain at F for the P.M. peak hour with a 365.6 second per vehicle delay. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-6 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained. Impact 3.3-7: SR 79 1 Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 1 Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 ICountry Glen Way; SR 79 1 Redhawk Pkwy 1 Margarita Road The current conditions for the intersection of Highway 79 and Jedediah Smith Road is LOS B during the A.M. peak hour with a 10.5 second per vehicle delay and LOS B during the P.M. peak hour period with a 15.6 second per vehicle delay. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS levels will remain the same, but the delay will slightly increase to 11.0 seconds per vehicle during the A.M. peak hour and 17.2 seconds per vehicle delay during the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of the project and cumulative projects, the LOS level is expected to decrease to LOS C in the A.M. peak hour with a 30.7 second per vehicle delay, and to LOS F in the P.M. peak hour period with a 123.5 second per vehicle delay. Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes the P.M. peak hour to decrease to F, and because the delay is greater than 2 seconds, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable. In an effort to alleviate this significant impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 is discussed in the Supplemental EIR. This measure would improve signal coordination along Highway 79, including the Jedediah Smith Road intersection, the Highway 79 and Avenida De Missiones intersection, and the Highway 79 and Redhawk Parkway and Margarita Road intersection. In addition to the improved signal coordination, the measure also mandates the construction of lane geometry improvements and modifications to the existing traffic signal at the main Project driveway. These modifications should be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finalize these modifications will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services, the Project applicant, subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and other related mitigation measures, the LOS level during the P.M. peak hour will be LOS E with a 75.3 second per vehicle delay and the impact during the A.M. peak hour will be fully mitigated. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right-of-way cannot be obtained. Thus, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. Impact 3.3-8: SR 79 1 Avenida De Missiones The current conditions for the intersection of Highway 79 and Avenida De Missiones is LOS A during the A.M. peak hour with a 6.4 second per vehicle delay and LOS A during the P.M. peak hour period with a 7.6 second per vehicle delay. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS levels will remain the same with the delay increasing slightly to 6.7 in the A.M. peak hour and to 8.7 in the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of the Project and cumulative projects, the LOS level is expected to degrade to LOS B in the A.M. peak hour with a 12.9 second per vehicle delay and LOS F in the P.M. peak hour period with a 95.3 second per vehicle delay. Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes the P.M. peak hour to degrade to F, and because the delay is greater than 2 seconds, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable. In an effort to alleviate this significant impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 is discussed in the Supplemental EIR. This measure would improve signal coordination along Highway 79, including the Avenida De Missiones intersection, the Highway 79 and Jedediah Smith Road intersection, and the Highway 79 and Redhawk Parkway and Margarita Road intersection. In addition to the improved signal coordination, the measure also mandates the construction of lane geometry improvements and modifications to the existing traffic signal at the main Project driveway. These modifications should be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finalize these modifications will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services, the Project applicant, subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and other related mitigation measures, the LOS level during the P.M. peak hour will be reduced to LOS E with a 60.6 second per vehicle and the impact during the A.M. peak hour will be fully mitigated. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained. Thus, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. Impact 3.3-9: SR 79 / Country Glen Way The current conditions for the intersection of Highway 79 and Country Glen Road is LOS A during the A.M. peak hour with a 5.0 second per vehicle delay and LOS B during the P.M. peak hour period with a 10.1 second per vehicle delay. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS levels remain the same, with the delay increasing slightly to 5.2 during the A.M. peak hour and to 11.1 during the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of the Project and cumulative projects, the LOS level is expected to decrease to LOS E in the A.M. peak hour with a 77.3 second per vehicle delay and LOS F in the P.M. peak hour period with a 244.6 second per vehicle delay. Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes the A.M. peak hour to degrade to level E and the P.M. peak hour to degrade to F, and the delay is greater than 2 seconds, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable. In an effort to alleviate this significant impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 is discussed in the Supplemental EIR. This measure would improve signal coordination along Highway 79, including the Country Glen Way intersection, the Highway 79 and Jedediah Smith Road intersection, the Highway 79 and Avenida De Missiones, and the Highway 79 and Redhawk Parkway and Margarita Road intersection. In addition to the improved signal coordination, the measure also mandates the construction of lane geometry improvements and modifications to the existing traffic signal at the main Project driveway. These modifications shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finalize these modifications will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and other related mitigation measures, the LOS level during the A.M. peak hour period will be LOS B with a 15.7 second per vehicle delay, and during the P.M. peak hour will remain LOS F with a 131.5 second per vehicle delay. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right-of-way cannot be obtained. Thus, this P.M. peak hour impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. Impact 3.3-10: SR 79/ Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd The current conditions for the intersection of Highway 79 and Redhawk Parkway and Margarita Road is LOS C during the A.M. peak hour with a 28.4 second per vehicle delay and LOS C during the P.M. peak hour period with a 32.1 second per vehicle delay. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS levels remain at C, but the delay increases to 30.8 during the A.M. peak hour and to 34.9 during the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of the project and cumulative projects, the LOS level is expected to degrade to LOS F in the A.M. peak hour with a 178.0 second per vehicle delay and LOS F in the P.M. peak hour period with a 264.0 second per vehicle delay. Because the addition of the Project along with the cumulative projects causes the A.M. and P.M. peak hour to degrade to F, and the delay is greater than 2 seconds, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable. In an effort to alleviate this significant impact, Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 is discussed in the Supplemental EIR. This measure would improve signal coordination along Highway 79, including the intersection Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road, the Highway 79 and Jedediah Smith Road intersection, the Highway 79 and Avenida De Missiones, and the Highway 79 and Country Glen Way intersection. In addition to the improved signal coordination, the measure also mandates the construction of lane geometry improvements and modifications to the existing traffic signal at the main Project driveway. These modifications should be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if it is not completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finalize these modifications will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and other related mitigation measures, both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour LOS levels will remain at F with a 142.5 second per vehicle delay in the A.M. peak hour and a 212.5 second per vehicle delay in the P.M. peak hour. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact the area is built out and that the necessary right-of-way cannot be obtained. Thus, this impact will remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. Impact 3.3-11: SR 79 West of 1-15 The roadway segment of Highway 79 west of Interstate 15 currently operates at LOS A with a v/c ratio of 0.578. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level decreases to B with the v/c ratio at 0.630. With the addition of the Project and other cumulative projects in the area, the LOS level will further degrade to E and the v/c ratio will increase to 0.953. Any increase in v/c ratio of greater than 2 percent is considered to be significant. Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes the LOS level to degrade to level E, and the v/c increase is greater than 2 percent, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 which will add lanes to both the northbound and southbound ramps of Highway 79 the traffic flow on this segment of highway will greatly improve. However, because the ability to add lanes to the southbound and northbound ramps requires coordination with Caltrans, mitigation measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 are deemed infeasible because the responsibility for the ramps is that of another agency and not the City of Temecula. Because the cumulative impact at this roadway segment cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable. Impact 3.3-12: SR 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway The roadway segment of Highway 79 between Interstate 15 and Pechanga Parkway currently operates at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.440. At Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level will remain at F with the v/c ratio at 1.569. This is considered to be a significant cumulative impact without the addition of the Project because the roadway segment is below level D prior to the addition of the Project and the increase in v/c ratio is greater than 2 percent. With the addition of the Project and the cumulative projects in the area, the roadway segment will remain at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 2.288. Mitigation Measures 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 which will add a fourth through lane in each direction on Highway 79 through La Paz Street, and will add a second eastbound right-turn lane on Highway 79 at Pechanga Parkway will mitigate this cumulative impact but not to a level of insignificance. The modifications specified by these mitigation measures should be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the Project, and if these modifications are not completed prior to this time, the responsibility to finalize these modifications will be the responsibility of Universal Health Services, the Project applicant, subject to potential reimbursement by the City or other projects. Even with implementation of these mitigation measures the roadway segment will continue to operate at LOS F with a vie ratio of 1.718 therefore constituting a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measures 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and the necessary right-of-way cannot be obtained. Impact 3.3-13: SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road The roadway segment Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road currently operates at LOS C with a v/c ratio of 0.724. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level remains at C with the v/c ratio increasing to 0.789. With the addition of the Project and the other cumulative projects in the area, the roadway segment will operate at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.530. Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes the LOS level to degrade to level F, and because the increase in v/c ratio is greater than 2 percent, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable. Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 and other related mitigation measures, the LOS level and v/c ratio will remain the same. Thus, this cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained. Impact 3.3-14: SR 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road The roadway segment Highway 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road currently operates at LOS B with a v/c ratio of 0.635. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level remains at B with the v/c ratio increasing to 0.692. With the addition of the Project and the other cumulative projects in the area, the roadway segment will operate at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.111. Because the addition of the Project with'the cumulative projects causes the LOS level to rise to F, and the increase in v/c ratio is greater than 2 percent, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable. Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-7, the LOS and v/c ratio will remain the same. Thus, this cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-7 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right-of-way cannot be obtained. Impact 3.3-15: Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 The roadway segment of Pechanga Parkway, south of Highway 79 currently operates at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.258. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level will remain at F with the v/c ratio increasing to 1.371. Because the LOS level is already below D before the addition of the Project, and the increase in v/c ratio between the existing conditions and the Opening Day Without the Project is greater than 2 percent, this impact is considered to be a cumulative impact without the project. With the addition of the project and other cumulative projects in the area, the LOS level will remain at F, but the v/c ratio will increase to 2.053. Mitigation Measure 3.3-8 which will add a third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions will cause a decrease in v/c ratio, but not to a level of insignificance. Thus, even with mitigation, the LOS level will remain at F and the v/c ratio will slightly decrease to 1.299. Therefore, this cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable. As provided in the Supplemental EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond measure 3.3-8 that would reduce this significant cumulative impact because no regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be obtained. Impact 3.3-16: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 The roadway segment of Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 currently operates at LOS C with a v/c ratio of 0.730. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level will remain at C with the v/c ratio increasing to 0.796. With the addition of the Project and other cumulative projects in the region, the LOS level decreases to F with a v/c ratio of 1.050. Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes the LOS level to degrade to F, and because the increase in v/c ratio is greater than 2 percent, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this cumulative impact. As discussed in the SEIR, the City examined capacity enhancements, but determined none were feasible because of the limitations within the existing right-of-way. As such, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.3-17: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 The roadway segment of Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 70 currently operates at LOS C with a v/c ratio of 0.702. At Project Opening Day Without the Project, the LOS level will remain at C with the v/c ratio increasing to 0.765. With the addition of the Project and cumulative projects, the LOS level deteriorates to F with a v/c ratio of 1.074. Because the addition of the Project with the cumulative projects causes the LOS level drops to F, and because the increase in v/c ratio is greater than 2 percent, the impact is considered cumulatively considerable. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this significant cumulative impact other than the requirement that the Project applicant pay the City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula encroachment permit. As discussed in the SEIR, the City examined capacity enhancements, but determined none were feasible because of the limitations within the existing right-of-way. As such, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. v. Proiect Alternatives. The City considered a range of reasonable alternatives as discussed in the Final EIR and Supplemental EIR. Because the prior legal challenges did not contest the validity of the Final EIR alternative analysis, and because a previously unavailable alternate site became available during the pendancy of the legal challenges, the Supplemental EIR examines only a new Alternative Seven, which consists of an alternative site alternative at the Former Temecula Education Center. For the reasons provided below, this alternative has been considered and rejected. Section 1. ALTERNATIVE SEVEN: ALTERNATE SITE-FORMER TEMECULA EDUCATION CENTER A. Summary of Alternative The Alternative Site Alternative, Former Temecula Education Center Alternative considers an alternative location for the proposed Project. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek, is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. The former Temecula Education Center site was previously the subject of applications proposing use of the site as an education complex, including an education center, a research and development/conference center, a day care facility, retail facilities, apartment units and associated parking. The Temecula Education Center project has been withdrawn from further consideration by the City and thus the site is potentially available for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the proposed Project. Access to the Temecula Education Center site is via Diaz Road, via either Rancho California Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include open space to the north, Murrieta Creek and open space to the east, business park Iwarehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. This site is currently owned by the City of Temecula and all properties would need to be under the applicant's control for the Project to proceed. A Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit would be required. B. Reasons for Reiectina Alternative This alternative site, similar to the proposed Project site, would not have a 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 Seven has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts due to the less intense development in the vicinity of the alternate site, whereas the proposed Project does not. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be less than the proposed Project due to slightly shorter helicopter trips and the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts would be similar to the proposed Project. Traffic impacts would be slightly worse. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the Project. Further, this alternative would attain each of the Project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the Project applicant, as provided in the Supplemental EIR, outside of using the actual site as currently proposed. Although Alternative Seven would meet each of the objectives set out by the City of Temecula and the Project applicant, it has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, and increased traffic impacts. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above constitutes an independent ground for rejecting Alternative Seven as infeasible and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative Seven as infeasible. Section 2. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Even with the addition of Alternative Seven, the Supplemental EIR identifies, and the City Council concurs that Alternative Six, Construction of Hospital Only, discussed more fully in the Final EIR, is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, because that Alternative would not meet the applicant's objective to provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices because of the fact that 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, it is rejected. Section 3. THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED A. Summary of Project The Project is described in detail in both the EIR and the Supplemental EIR. B. Reasons for Selectina Proiect as ProDosed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of Alternative Seven described in the Supplemental EIR and has compared it with those of the proposed Project. The City Council also relies on the prior accuracy of the alternative analysis which was not legally challenged and remains valid. This analysis of Alternative Seven together with the previous alternative analysis in the Final EIR is adequate for CEQA purposes, and the City Council finds that Alternative Seven is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons. The City Council further finds, for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth in Exhibit B that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interests of the public. EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts, noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights identified in the Final EIR, siren noise, construction noise, and direct traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts identified in the SEIR and in the record. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because while they generally have similar or less environmental impacts, they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. 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. C. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide superior, easily accessible necessary medical services to the local community, including but not limited to emergency, acute, outpatient, and cancer medical care and physical rehabilitation services. Southwest Riverside County in general, and the City of Temecula specifically, is in need of new and expanded hospital facilities to enhance the ability to provide medical services to the area which continues to experience substantial population grow1h and related increased demand for medical services. D. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with new employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services workers. E. 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 individual Temecula Regional Hospital benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and SEIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Supplemental EIR - SCH # 2005031017 Prepared for: City of Temecula ,January 2008 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Supplemental EIR - SCH # 2005031017 Prepared for: City of Temecuia January 2008 9191 Towne Centre Drive SUite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 WWW.esassoc.com Los Angeles oaJ<jand Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tarrpa Woodland Hills 207434 r-.ESA ---4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, a public agency is required to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuling compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to a proposed development. As stated in the Public Resources Code: ". .the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. " Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoling programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced duling project implementation, shall be defined plior to final certification of the EIR. The public agency may delegate reporting or monitoling responsibilities to another public agency or a private entity, which accept delegations. The lead agency, however, remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occur in accordance with the program. The mitigation monitoling table below lists mitigation measures required of the project in order to reduce the significant effects of the project. These measures may also be included as conditions of approval for the project. These measures correspond to those discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.3 of the Draft EIR; and reflect any revisions in this document. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoling program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoling each measure. The applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and the valious City of Temecula departments will have the plimary responsibility for monitoling and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. This Mitigation Monitoling and Reporting Program (MMRP) is set up as a compliance report, with space for confinning the correct mitigation measures have been implemented for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. In order to sufficientiy track and document the status of mitigation measures, the matrix below has been prepared with the following components: . Mitigation measure . Monitoring phase . Enforcement agency . Monitoling agency . Action Indicating Compliance . Verification of Compliance (for use duling the reporting/monitoring) Infonnation pertaining to compliance with mitigation measures or any necessary modifications and refinements will be documented in the velification of compliance portion of the matrix. The mitigation matlix follows this section. T emeQJla Regional Hospital Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 ESA/D207434 January 2008 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro~ram TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONT.) Mitigation MellSure MTBE Plume Miiigatlon Measlirei1~1:"Petrolfiu'm'"affe"C'ied soils at the proposed hospital site if any, (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered) shall be segregated, stockpiled on-site, and sampled prIor to disposal at an appropriate facility, as required by the respective disposal facility_ All contaminated solis $hall be disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating the transport and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. These materials shall be transported to a permitted disposal facility by a licensed waste hauler. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, a detailed soil, groundwater. and soil vapor sampling program shall be conducted for the proposed hospital site. Any identified MTBE- or other VQC impacted soil shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations during demolition of structures. The project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests. sampling, and soil monitoring test results) to the City of Temecula showing that abatement of any MTBE. or other vac- containing soil identified in the project site has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR. Subchapter R. TSCA. Parts 790. 792.797.798. and 799 and CCR Title 8. Article 2.6). TemeCtlla Regional Hospital Mlllgaijon Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction I Construction Enforcement Agency City of"Te"mecula Community Development Department Monitoring Agency City of Temecula Community Development Department Pre..COnstructionj--;---"CTfY^ofTemecula--' --City of Temecula Construction Community Community Development Development Department Department 2 Action Indicating Compliance Environmental Monitor report to City .. -- ---issuance-'clf" Encroachment Permit InitIals Verification of Compliance Remarks Date ESA/207434 January 2008 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CO NT.) MItigation Measure Noise MitigatIon Measure i2:1";"f'fiefOllo\^ing"'measures should be considered in the project's design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: . 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. . Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. . All Construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. . The project proponent will hire a noise monitor to accept complaints and confirm compliance with above-mentioned mitigation measures. M'lil'gat"i'o-n'--Nfeasure"3.2~i None Required. The City's ordinance limiting, the hours of construction, provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant there are no mitigation requirements placed on this type of __!l~_~ Temecula Regional Hospital Mltlgatlon Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Phase p're-Constrl.ictiC;iii Construction Constructionl Operational Enforcement Agency City of Temecula Community Development Department City of Temecula Community Development Department 3 Monitoring Agency City of Temecula Building and Safety Department City of Temecula Community Development Department Action Indicating Compliance Department of Building and Safety shall Verify Plans Non Required Initials Verification of Compliance Date Remarks ESA10207434 January 2006 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONT.) Mitigation Measure Traffic Mitigation Measure 3-:3:'f:"~fraffi'c'signal Coordination - SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South I Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination - Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road". The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula OIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula building permit. Should the entire CIP funding not be in place at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase lA, the applicant shall fund and implement the traffic signal coordination and establish a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula to be reImbursed for expenditures made on behalf of the City. HO'Never, at this time, the CIP calls for completion of the improvement in the Year 2008. Temecula Regional Hospital Mlllgation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction Enforcement Agency 'C'~y' '(if TEi'mecula Community Development Department 4 Monitoring Agency City of Temecula Community Development Department Action Indicating Compliance Issuance of Building Permit Initials Verification of Compliance Remarks Date ESA/207434 January 2006 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Traffic cont. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2:- TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CO NT.) Monitoring Phase . - ._-_...._......._...._.l..--.-pre-consiructio-n. . Driveway #1 on SR 79: Driveway #1 on SR 79 is the fourth (north) leg of the SR 79/ Country Glen Way. This Intersection is currently a signalized T~ intersection. Modification of the current signal has already been completed to accommodate the fourth leg serving the project site and other related changes to geometry. The project shall provide the following additional intersection geometry: o A dedicated westbound right-turn lane on SR 79, o Dual eastbound left-turn lanes on SR 79, and dual left turn lanes and a shared through! right-turn lane in the southbound direction exiting the project site. . Driveway #2 on SR 79: Driveway #2 on SR 79 shall be located at the \Yest boundary of the property and will provide unsignalized right in/right-out only access. This 40-foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. . Driveway #3 on De Portola Road: Driveway #3 on De Portola Road will provide unsignalized right-in I right-out and left-in only access. Left-turns out of the hospital shall be prohibited. This 4Q..foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. . The hospital and other related buildings are located approximately in the center of the site, surrounded by parking. An adequate internal roadway system shall be provided to access each facility and to provide adequate parking. Temecule Regional H08plt.BI Mltlgatlon Monltorlng end Reporting Program Enforcement Agency .----CitY.of Temecuii'-'1 Community ! Development I Department 5 Action Indicating Monltorln~ Agency Compliance '-.citY o(Temecula-'-- Community Development Department MTssuanceo{S.ulldlng Permit Verification of Comcliance Initials Date Remarks ESAI0201434 January200a Mitigation Measure Traffic cont. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: SR 79/1-15 Southbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 151 State Route 79 South Interchange~ (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be complete prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching fundS and 5B 621 funds and construction is expected In 2011. Mitigation Measures 3.3--3 and 3.3--4, require coordination with Caltrans and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be In place prior to occupancy of the hospital project, even though the interchange improvements are fully funded and expected to be in construction in the year 2011. Therefore, the mitigation is deemed infeasible, because of the uncertainty associated with control of the project by an outside public agency (Caltrans) and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the Interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, the interchange impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. Temecula Regional Hospital Mmgatlon Monlklrlng and Reporting Program TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CO NT.) MonltorlnR Phase Pre-Construction Enforcement Agency Action Indicating Monitoring Agency Compliance ---CitYofTemecula --,.....-cTtY'.Qf-Temecula Community Community Development Development Department Department Issuance Encroachment Permit 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks ESAfD207434 January 2008 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MItigation Measure Traffic cont. Mltlgatlon"'Meas'u"r:e 3~3-4: SR 79 i'i~'f5'"'No-rthbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15/ State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be complete prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, Note: Funding is secured through DfF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs. State and Federal matching funds and 5B 621 funds, and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, require coordination with Caltrans and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place prior to occupancy of the hospital project, even though the interchange improvements are fully funded and expected to be in construction in the year 2011. Therefore, the mitigation is deemed infeasible. because of the uncertaInty associated with control of the project by an outside public agency (Caltrans) and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, the interchange Impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unmitlgable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations v.i.1I be required, TemectJleRegionalHospltal Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONT.) Monitoring Phase Pre~Cl')nstructil')n Enforcement Agency 'cIiY'otTemecula Communtty Development Department 7 Action Indicating Monitoring Agency Compliance City of Temecula Community Development Department Issuance of Encroachment Permit Verification of ComDlIance Initials Date Remarks ESAI0207434 January 2008 Mitigation Measure Traffic cont. Pmtlgatlon Measure 3.3-5: SR 791 La Paz St City of Temecula CIP entitled "Route 79 South Widening -Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway", which will add a fourth through lane In each direction on SR 79 through La Paz Street shall be constructed prior to the City's Issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the Improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase lA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding Is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, and construction is expected to occur in 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Intersection of SR 791 Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula CIP entitled ~State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway- Dual Right-Turn Lanes", which will add a second eastbound right-turn lane on SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, S8 621 Funds, and construction is scheduled for 200B. Temecula Regional Hospital Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CO NT.) MonltorlnQ Phase Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Enforcement AQency City of T emecula Community Development Department City of Temecula Community Development Department 8 Action Indicating MonltorlnQ Agency Compliance 'i-City of Temecula . , Community Development Department City of Temecula Community Development Department Issuance Certificate of Occupancy Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Comollance Initials Date Remarks ESA/0207434 January 2008 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Traffic cont. Mitigation Measure 3.3~7:""SFf79 i Jedediah Smith. Rd; SR 79/ Avenida De Missiones; SR 79/ Country Glen Way; SR 79 I Redhawk Pkwy I Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination - Old To'M1 Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road" shall be completed prior to the City's issuance 01 a certificate 01 occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance 01 a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase lA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. This project will improve the signal coordination along SR 79, Including the SR 79/ Jededlah Smith Road, SR 79/ Avenida De Missiones and SR 791 Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road intersections, which 'Hill improve traffic flow through these intersections. In addition, the project shall construct lane geometry improvements and modify the existing traffic signal at the main project driveway, prior to project operation. Note: Funding is secured through DfF fees. and construction is scheduled for 2008. Segment SR 79 West ot 1-15 The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-3 and 3,3-4 will also mitigate this impact. The improvements to the interchange will greatly improve traffic flow on this segment of SR 79, However, Mitigation Measures 3,3-3 and 3.3-4, require coordination with Caltrans and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place or prior to occupancy of the hospital project, even though the interchange improvements are fully funded and expected to be in construction in the year 2011. Therefore, the mitigation is deemed infeasible, because of the uncertainty associated with control of the project by an outside public agency (Caltrans) and not the City of Temecula. Because the Impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated \Yith certainty, the interchange impacts are considered cumulatively .~.ig.l:l.i.~.~.~~t~n.c:l. unmitfgable for whi~a ,$ta~~rl)~_nt Temecula Regional Ho'pltal MItigation Monltorll'\Q and Reporting Program TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CO NT.) Monitoring Phase Pre.Cori'struction Enforcement Aaencv City of T emecula Community Development Department 9 Action Indicating MonltorinR AQencv Compliance City 01 T emecula Community Oevelopment Department Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks ESA I 0201434 January 2008 Mitigation Measure Traffic cont. Overriding Considerations will be.required. SegmentSR 79 between 1..15 and Pechanga Parkway The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 will also mitigate this Impact. Segment Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkwayand Margarita Road; Highway 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road The mitigation measures listed for Impact 3.3-7 will also mitigate this impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-8:..F:i'echanga.ParkWay'Souih of SR 79 City of Temecula CIP for fiscal Years 2007..2011 entitled ~Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase W - Public Works Account No. 210.165.668, shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building In Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase lA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: This project will add the third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions. Funding Is secured through DIF fees. CFD (Wolf Creek), Public Lands and Highway Program, Pechanga Tribe contributions and Rancho California Water District funding, and construction is scheduled between 2007 and 2011. Temecula Reglonal Hospital MllllJatlon Monltorfng and Reporting Program TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SEIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (CONT.) Monitorln~ Phase Enforcement AAencv , p're::C'o'ri's'tr'u6tlo'il" ..! City of T emecula Community Development Department , ...1________.. 10 Action Indicating Monitoring Agency Compliance -"".."..-.....-" ..................... City of Temecula Community Developmen1 Department Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Comoliance Initials Date Remarks ESAID207434 January 2008 - ..: z o ~ ~ o::~ -Cl wO Ulo:: ...>0. ~Cl -z "-- UlI- 00:: :1:0 ...."- <(W zo:: 00 -z Cl<( WCl O::z :50! :>0 01- W- :;;z wO I-~ z o ~ Cl ;: !iE E e ~ e "- ~ c € o ~ . '" ~ c . ~ c 'c B 'c o :> c o ~ ~ ~ " .. u e .!! Ci E .. o 1; o c '0 e .2 1; u w !E ~ ~ '2 '" e iii u .. -u 'Oe Em e= 0" -E tlo <(0 - e .. E .. :> ~ u o i c.. W<( w '" ~ E .:! :> u c .. .. <( .. c 't: II 'E o ::E m a.?;-cc 4)-- (l) <ll E5EE III E g.t:: it E v [ 00> IV >.0 lVC :::: 0 <.) . . m .c .. .. -E II 'E o ::E e ~ w m .. ::E e o iii ,go ~ 'i: o u u e f ... w :c ..~ m :Cll ,lL :cu e ;0 Z m ~~cc 41-- 11l Q) ESE E IV E g.t:: !: E v II OO><LJ ~()<Uo ._ 0 <.) c o U :2 :w c '0 u :0, Ii. w '0 ,E o <= '0 m o :0:::: 'm 1" m ~ m ::;;.. 0;..... ,,, :a ...c ~'" ;:i: m 0 ..- ::E'O m eo 00:: ;12 ",0 -" "'0 ::ElL Q) g J~~~o u .~o - ~.... Q) ~.S! ;9-gr; cr~g ~m Ens Q) m~a~ MlI)~ ~.!.!!;.o ,S:!:c.!:::..... oc...........l'DG) 0 Cl)Uc _OCCo~l'DQ)""" e:2m:C"C~~ ~ B.G> a.w:s:-g l'O=c-c=S !Ei5'o41l'Ut) Ul 1\1 o~ ftt:O u.9:!'c 0..0.c.'3 (l) ~ b .~"C 5l :'U E'~=:;;:: E ~ f/)C~~~.c_-l/)"'Q)~i3Q) nsgn; ClSu"" In.....: o.c.o!p II) G>a; c"C C a):5 C_j III ~~.- E i5.g E.!! g :e E -8 _ ~ E ~ l5 a E:c E OI13:g :Jr'S.!!:l Q) --:a; :ai 8-g 8:E ~ tV en E~ ~ ~rea. goe 0 g:~ cn.E.~~o~'~ III gE .- c: we .c'o;:mUQ)"O Eg. ~Q) O>'-:!ioQ.Q>cnO(ij CI'J.o :>... ~ C) rn E en - c: Q) m-ec~:e:$cfll_Q)Ogw C~::::la:l::CO.2ClS(.)C.!! ~ .2 ...... Cf.l u.... 0 ..... l'D o.~._ Q) '0 (.) m :aumJg2~J::.!1~~'Cii;c(l)3 -gJ! E ai'&ai'~5i E;;; ctl~'5 Q)CE';::E-EQ)>U)-~E- ~-S.Q Q) O'lc.~ Q)iii:;C~ Ul:P~ o16:>coo:>al-Q)O'(fl(fl..... cv..... Cle~Q;E eW:J E Q) as.- C ..... Q) ~ a..!!! :> -c a. Emu 0.:5'- ~.g'E.~ ~~~.!;1J ~:; ~~16~ :0 ~ i~ E:t:: I'c u E m m v .J e a.. :~ () _c UJ m >5 '>..c..... J~:f::-CU ~ iE 5 E E !~ E~1ij ]0 5 ~ ;r I~O t3 0 :<3 m (B~cc lcu,- Q) III I~ 5 ~ E t-Eo't:: _ Em ~ 00> III 2'O~O (j Ie ,0 I. u 12 IUj la ,0 " !~ , ..-.-.-~- , !~ o '" ! m lL ~ m .c '0 w 0:: <; :;; ..; e ~ w m VO> ::Er-- H -.c ~.Ql +,:1: :e'5 "- Ci m -,; ~.!! E ~ w u ...w _E ow ;,:-!: GO '0;':- ~G '5 >- O'e wm ~o ~~~ =cE ~~& =~..... C'- c mow u-E =CiJ:: g; 'co. M m 0 ~mg I-.!Ill c -c.25E ~ ~ -o.g c ~.- Q) .Qlllas .!!=~*~-ga; ~ ~ ~ a cP ~.g ~ ti:l ~ as -; "5 E ~ oS! Ill.!::fi~ 0)'- -$1S C::~.- O)-cuc::.!!!..c:~O)CUc::asUlUl~ .....=m:E.n... <<I=.~ Cl)1iI.tl:C- :16 5~...-81501!i ~8:::: g Q)~._>c::s~c::JQ)()~<<I- 5 0 ~-o Q) u:C 0 E en <<I as en (l) ~ 15-~ ~~~~ 5~ni ~!.~ Q)'';::: <<1-0 cu ..... C - ti 0) CD al..... E~aEoen~.2Q)liiQ)nicc-g 0..- Ul 0 :>. E () Ie ..... ..... al cE~E:c...~CUl;::<<lcu.svti g 0-0 0-:0 ::o.:C:o g.fJ~ 8- CO (.J <<I U me::..... E.gJC1l oWlO)( C)coUCOO_en.-...... _0) Eoc<<l,2()- ......e-ov::::J(Il E g- k.8 alca!l,E o.v= E.- m1U~c:~Q).;::~CU~~Q;55 CJ::::::J co:: [Iii E:Q.c a.> Q)... .g.....(/Jo_occu>:-xlPJ::..9! :60m.!!_oQ;~f;e~Q)~~0. '0 m E c: J:: >.- ..... 0._ (/J J::'- E <<1- cu 0)-00.= Q) c: '00 WeE .g>>-c -0 E ~ = ,2 v Q) () o.co <<l._>l!:!~()L..Q) z......_cuC)-ccuEGO V'-CU(fl cvg~e:a ~'5 Q) =~ ~ ~~ i ~ '0 cu; a.J!? cu gti g; a. Q) fI) c: 0 :J z.g'E .s ~ ~ <<I ~aJ.~ E '0 8.8.2 ~~ MO ~2 3 ~ ;:i~ w ~ ~ E ~ E .. o c ~ o ~ ~~ ~~ . c o . r~ ~J i'c "'~ . c H E 0 ." ~:> \ \ ~I -" ';; \. w l~ MO E ;!~ ~ g ~ It\ - " g ~ . "'~ " w ~ r< ~ c o 0 . - g 0 '0 c ~ 0 c ~ 0 U .. '" '" .. c 't: '" 0 .. :5 - :> . ~\ '" \'0 '0 lS c ~ 111) a> C U .. \<JmlXS -u cuO- 'Dc \m'" 8 .so!! a:t c- \~~O ~ 00- \ ~ ~~ I <~ , 0 , ~ i :;: \$ It~ \a C:c ,4)~41<>> _Cl < tE 5 E:'E wo " I(\) E %1:: "'It € \t: Ea; ~ ;to. g 00> Q) I-Cl " \Bo~o -z 0 0.- ::IE ",l- i.. 015 Xo. \m ~~ E>cc -.: ..",,, ~ 00\ ,E 5 t: -z II \~~~~ N Cl<O: ~ wCl llti \'0 0 i; g- Itz ~c 1~000 .2.. ~ii! ~~- ,,-, ::>0 \-- 01- w- ::E% ~l ~ wO I-::E .1l c '" z ... 0- 0 " a ~ .5 \0 at i! Cl c E 0 ,'" ::E ::IE \ i.-- I I I ..- '" 50IU I _4).t:c \ o:g (Z"- \ ?;.so.~ 1 ffi 0 <D~ \4> 0-0)5 =' .s~_!::.....o 8"Cl 4l >- \~ o~~ ~ ::J 0..0- '- ~:: ~=E.9 E cIl.g ~::l >- . oo._-og m l-'OO11)~ e ;':.$~;;:; a. ~ ~~~~~ ~ " ~ .. !8g~o ~! ~ ::S1l)oO~ \~~ " ~ ii .. =<<;~c:e .. :; ~ ~ lIII.!!3'-~~ n .. 2 ~~.cai c ~~ c 0 c: E~ If) /.) . ~ U .2dl_c(roc( "". u la>~-;"O-; . c ., 0 :: ~~.g.~ ~ ~ ~~ lii ~ \_ E 0 r. VI- r. \ E ~ :E.- r. Q....~ a.. 1'." ATTACHMENT NO.4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-_ (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORTdoc 31 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08- 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 TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH), APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198)" Section 1. Procedural Findinos. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Plannil)g Application Numbers 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 Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. - C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\GPA Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-02, recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the General Plan Amendment 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\GPA Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 2 M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-06, approving the General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5,2007 through December 5,2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan) and PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\GPA Resolution (01-09-2008)DOC 3 T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planning Application No. PA07-0198, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. V. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, Planning Application No. PA07-0198, hereby finds, determines and declares that: 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 diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, 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 3);" and "A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation 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 and conditions of approval have been imposed 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 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Oraft Resolutions\PC\GPA Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 4 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 height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and state highway corridors rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens upon entry to the Project site, and sirens may only be used in emergency situations. The Project is a conditionally permitted use and 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 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, medical office buildings, cancer research and treatment center, physical therapy and rehabilitation center, and a helipad. The nature of these uses, 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 of the 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. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planning Application No. PA07-0198, 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's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-G198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\GPA Resolution (01-09-2008) DOC 5 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, Draft City Council Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full). Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 9th day of January 2008. , 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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of January 2008, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\GPA Resolution (01-09-200B).DOC 6 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 08-_ G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\GPA Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 7 RESOLUTION NO. 08-_ 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 TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH), APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findinas.. 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 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 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. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-02, recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT), PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the General Plan Amendment at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-06, approving the General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan) and PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-02, recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA07-0198). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the General Plan Amendment (PA07-0198) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08- , entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA07-0198 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT), PA07-0199 (ZONE CHANGE), PA07-0202 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS), PA07-0200 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), PA07-0201 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby 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 diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, 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 3)," and "A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation 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 and conditions of approval have been imposed 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 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 height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and state highway corridors rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens upon entry to the project site, and sirens may only be used in emergency situations. The Project is a conditionally permitted use as 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 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, medical office buildings, cancer research and treatment center, physical therapy and rehabilitation center, and a helipad. The nature of these uses, 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 of the 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of January 2008. Michael S. Naggar, 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. 08-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of January, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS Susan Jones, MMC City Clerk EXHIBIT A EXISTING GENERAL PLAN FIGURE LU-4 ,fiilf1 ~ L ^ N D u S E. Land Use Exhibit A - Existing -'.--r~ - /' Figure LU-4 (' Specific Plan Areas CITY OF TEftfECULA GENERAL PLAN Appto'ved Speclftc Plans ~w-, ~... Sf'- Z RMcho..... SP-3~~ SP.4 I, ,0000SoI sP. ~ OWl.... sp. f,j clIllpOI YerdeI SP.7T~~C(lf'10l' 51"-6 ~.OIdrlJYin sp-a~ 51"-10 VaI~ SP-l'~fIaft:tI SP-,2 Ydera.k SP-1J~ POO-lY~er-.~ PDO-5 Radlofluetllq .106 DuldtVMIP "184 RMld1a.... YIM 11213 ~Pltll*tihIShvoma'Njo, It ws IIvtM AiIpMl .284 QWu OOtAgo .286 . ltoO 1I' 238 . CIOMI VIIIr~ n13~'" --- ---- ---- ~-::;;;;""---- ~-rJO"",,:~ -_:::.:.-------- -- Nun ap.cllk: Pion. y ~PlMArMV l SpIItI!r:PIW1Ar..l ... ~ \ ~ ------ ~c~~~ --_ T~CctI~ _ _ __. 6ptWIMa ~......, -- ~r......~....'_ _ .... ---1 W_EO S 500 IF# ~. 250 >--' ( y (, '-) [ r \\ r ( 1I I. ,\ " I I{ \ l. I' I \" 111,1.(' EXHIBIT B PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FIGURE lU-4 4 L 1\ N D u S E / , , r Figure LU-4 / Specific Plan Areas CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Approved Specific Plans sp., ~... &P-2 ~HIlfIIIn!b v- 3 ....,..VIIIqe 8P- ~,. . OtIS<< w~ t Q4fOM'l SP- IS c....,. VIIfidM filp.7T~~c.n:. &p.' ......,...........-....OldTov.o sp..~ &P-,O v..~ SP-IIR~ftW'dI IP-t2 \'Me,.. SP-t3~ Pf)().4 t...... CtWiIk W:Igt POO-5 ...,.,.... .tOl ClMft1Jlllgil . 1M ~........ _2'SWr'dlMIIIr.. "'~,~ . 28S BrnIMpM; .2IM a...u Do t..Jua .. 'MdlNIW lIDO .231 QlMl'I v..., ..... _313 Mc.wgInHfl Future Specific Pia.. y SpIlCiIkIPIIW\:"'-V z ~. ~~ ~~ ~ o y ~ ~ /// ~ 'fj. // /'" ~ a ,/ / % %. /' ~ '/, ~ ) ~----------- \:. ..,..~.... ~~O '\... .---- ~ '\ -----------...---- '6 a \ _.... T....CI)'~ ..__... ~of~~ -- .s.-.. r-.llOlS..wC*'- ..~ W~ 0 WE- S 250 500 ~ l y T r \ \ I l II I. .\ 11 I ,\ " ,-, C, I ". IZ_\ L Land Use Exhibit B - Proposed ill>,; ATTACHMENT NO.5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-_ (ZONE CHANGE) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 32 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08- 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 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0199)" Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-g); 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 Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. G:\Planning\2007\PA07..o198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\Zone Change Resolution (01-09-2008).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 Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-03, 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 Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (PA05- 0302). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\Zone Change Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 2 APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Zone Change at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-01, 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 (PA05-0302). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of T emecula's approval of the Project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\Zone Change Resolution (01-o9-2008).DOC 3 S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan) and PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Zone Change, Planning Application No. PA07-0199, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. V. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Zone Change, Planning Application No. PA07-0199, hereby finds, determines and declares that: 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 Zone Change 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 Zone Change 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 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council amend 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), adopt Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 including the PDO text and development standards and change the official Zoning Map to show the boundaries of the proposed G:\Planning\2007\PA07-D198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\Zone Change Resolution (01-09-2008).OOC 4 PDO-9 in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, draft City Council Ordinance, 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, and specifically known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080- 004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 9th day of January 2008. , 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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of January 2008, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hosp~al GPA, SEIRIPlanninglPlanning CommissionlDraft ResolutionslPClZone Change Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 5 EXHIBIT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIRIPlanninglPlanning CommissionlDrafl ResolulionslPClZone Change Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 6 ORDINANCE NO. 08-_ 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 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959- 080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0199) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The City Council of the City of T emecula 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 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 ("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. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. 1 F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-03, 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 Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (PA05- 0302). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT), PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 2 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Zone Change at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-01, 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 (PA05-0302). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5,2007 through December 5,2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan) and PA07-0201 3 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. 1. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending 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 Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (PA07- 0199). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Zone Change (PA07-0199) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08- , entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA07-0198 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT), PA07-0199 (ZONE CHANGE), PA07-0202 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS), PA07-0200 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), PA07-0201 (TENTATIVE PARCEL 4 MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. 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 Z. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Zone Chance. 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 700 feet west of Margarita Road, and specifically known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 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 T emecula General Plan. 5 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." 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. 6 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 22nd day of January, 2008. Michael S. Naggar, 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, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 08-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of January, 2008 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of January, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk 7 EXHIBIT A EXISTING ZONING 8 Zone Change Exhibit A - Existina ~ ~ , ,~ z...... _........~~ I3:S] *"lOlW DtAdr RM*ftl~ ~ _ ~~""""".IJ _....~........CL.J:) f'Etl............o.-It~{LM) _.........t*.".......tM) -....--.. _ft.dl1ll.........(RA) _ ~1ftC) ._""""",,,,"(C<) .""lNT) .-"-.... .---""', _--''" _l.WC,....*IllItUI 1IiIII.....-.., ___(OS) _......fll'wtlu........rHI --- _.......l ..... ---...,- ---- _ItWTNIlOn ~ ~j { :,; ;j; EXHIBIT B PROPOSED ZONING 9 Zone Change Exhibit B - Proposed , .~ '" zo..... _..............~J DWiIIOJ''-~~''(IAJ _~~~tL.l) _LP-~A~{WJ O....~O"'IIftW'-.......(lMJ _~o."'''''''''''\M) _...."""'r-.. _Ronl~IAA) _,........ .. - (HC) __"--(CCJ _I" ~,,(KTl _-~(OC) _--"(1) _.........P..""" fIilIUlNiJldo..-(UI 111III--"" ---,.,., _PlM::PII'IIl...,.~ _c. p$Q -_. ...... ---"""- ---- _Tl*..r.....(TO / ATTACHMENT NO.6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-_ (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA. SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 33 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08- 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 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HELlPAD FOR A SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH), APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0202)" Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS") filed Planning Application Numbers 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 Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\CUP Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report, at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. G:\Planning\2007\PA07w0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\CUP Resolution (01-09-200B).DOC 2 M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: 1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5,2007 through December 5,2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan) and PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commisslon\Oraft Resolutions\PC\CUP Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 3 T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for a 320-bed hospital facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a helipad (collectively the "Conditional Use Permits") (PA07-0202), subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. V. AI/legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Findinas for Conditional Use Permit for HosDital Facilitv. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a 320-bed hospital facility (PA07-0202), as required by Section 17.04.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code, hereby finds, determines and declares that: 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 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutlons\PC\CUP Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 4 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 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 Y. 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 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 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. 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. 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) andlor the City of Temecula G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\CUP Resolution (01-09-200B).DOC 5 Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with applicable building and fire codes. Section 3. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a helipad (PA07-0202), as required by Section 17.04.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The helipad 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. B. The helipad shall not be used until the Applicant applies for and obtains 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 six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event. C. Noise exposure from helicopter flights will be minimized to the extent practicable because helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of the preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast, which avoids flying over residential areas. Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320-bed hospital facility and the Conditional Use Permit for a helipad for a site located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080- 004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 as set forth in Application Number PA07- 0202, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A draft City Council Resolution, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\CUP Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 6 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 9th day of January 2008. , 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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of January 2008, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Ptanning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\CUP Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 7 EXHIBIT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\CUP Resolution (01-<l9-2008).DOC 8 RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HELlPAD FOR A SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH), APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0202) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findinas. 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 Numbers 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 Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report, at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5,2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-05, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 320-bed hospital facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a helipad (collectively the "Conditional Use Permits") (PA07-0202). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permits (PA07-0202) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08- , entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA07-0198 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT), PA07-0199 (ZONE CHANGE), PA07-0202 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS), PA07-0200 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) and PA07-0201 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959- 080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Findinas for Conditional Use Permit for Hospital Facilitv. The City Council hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a conditional use permit for the 320-bed hospital facility: 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 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 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 Y. 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 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 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. 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. 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) andJor the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with applicable building and fire codes. Section 3. Findinas for Conditional Use Permit for Helioad. The City Council hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a conditional use permit for a helipad: A. The helipad 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. B. The helipad shall not be used until the Applicant applies for and obtains 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 six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event. C. Noise exposure from helicopter flights will be minimized to the extent practicable because helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of the preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast, which avoids flying over residential areas. Section 4. Conditional Aooroval. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320-bed hospital facility and the Conditional Use Permit for a helipad for a site located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 as set forth in Application No. PA07-0202 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 22nd day of January, 2008. Michael S. Naggar, 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, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 08- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of January, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk . EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SCANNED: G DRIVE: PERMITS PLUS: INITIALS: PLANNER: G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 1 PaDD ~ ~ <i~h 1989 / "q., O~ "IONS. NEW OyY ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I, (print name) understand that Planning Application No. PA07-0202 has been approved with Conditions of Approval which are set forth in Exhibit A. I have read the Conditions of Approval contained in CC Resolution No. 08-_ and understand them. Through signing this ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I agree and commit to the City of Temecula that I will implement and abide by the Conditions of Approval, including any indemnification requirements imposed by those conditions. SIGNA TURE DATE G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUPIPlanningICOA-CUP.doc 2 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (HOSPITAL) flanning Application No.: PA07-0202 Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit establishing a 320-bed hospital facility approximately 408,160 square feet within a related Development Plan (PA04-0463) 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 Category: Commercial DIF Category: Office TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office Approval Date: Determined by City Council Action Expiration Date: Determined by City Council Action WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. The applicanUdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars and seventy-five cents ($2,670.75) which includes the Two Thousand Six Hundred Six Dollars and seventy-five cents ($2,606.75) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4{d){3) plus the Sixty-Four Dollar ($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 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicanUdeveloper 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 review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an original signature to the Planning Department. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Plannlng\COA-CUP.doc 4 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. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201 and PA07-0202. 5. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated June 30, 2004, on file with the Planning Department, unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. 6. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 7. The City, and its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to the modification of the business, a change in scope, emphasis, size or nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council is in addition to, and not in-lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. 8. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 9. 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. 10. If commencement of the use has not occurred within two years of approval of this permit, the permittee may file an application at lest thirty days prior to expiration of the conditional use permit, apply for up to 3 one-year extensions of time. Each extension of time shall be granted in one-year increments only. 11. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage (Sign Program may be required). G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-GUP.doc 5 12. 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. 13. The applicant shall paint a three-foot x three-foot section of the building for Planning Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 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. 15. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. 16. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 17. A construction staging area plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. 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. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 20. 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.\ Fire Prevention 21. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential 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 4,000 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). 22. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-21/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 6 required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B). 23. All traffic calming devices that could impede or slow emergency vehicle access are prohibited, except those expressly approved by the fire prevention bureau individually on a case by case basis when they maintain the required travel widths and radii. 24. 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). This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. Police Department 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 31. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 7 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 8 Planning Department 32. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 33. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 34. 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 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." 35. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the Project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 36. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. 37. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. 38. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer. 39. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 40. All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 9 Fire Prevention 41. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4). 42. Cul-de-sacs and/or intersections with planters must maintain 24 foot clear unobstructed travel width around the planters, not including parking. Hardscape areas are permissible provided that they meet the 80,000 lb. load requirements and are at road level. 43. Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road. 44. 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). 45. 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). G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 10 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 11 Planning Department 46. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 47. A construction staging area plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit. 48. All downspouts shall be internalized. 49. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, 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. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. c. A note on the plans stating that "Two landscape inspections are required: one inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for final planting inspection". d. A note on the plans stating that ''The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." e. One copy of the approved grading plan. f. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). g. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). h. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. i. 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. j. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two (2) hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to- head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicanVowner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUPIPlanningICOA.CUP.doc 12 50. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 51. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises. decorative furniture. fountains. and hardscape) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 52. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 53. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. Fire Prevention 54. Prior to building permit or building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads. Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80.000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 55. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. 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. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC 8704.3. 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1). 56. Prior to issuance of building permits. plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include. but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block wails), and fuel modification zones (CFC Appendix II-A). G:\Ptanning\2007\PA07-0202 TemecuJa Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 13 PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecuta Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 14 Planning Department 57. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 58. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 59. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of 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 upon request by the applicant. 60. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (951) 696-3000." 61. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least three square feet in size. 62. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 63. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Fire Prevention 64. Prior to Occupancy and building final, 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecuta Regional Hospital CUP\Ptanning\COA-CUP.doc 15 shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet ( CFC see 902). 65. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 66. Prior to issuance of Occupancy 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 firefighting personnel (CFC 902.4). 67. 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. G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUPIPlanningICOA-CUP.doc 16 OUTSIDE AGENCIES G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA.CUP.doc 17 68. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated July 24, 2004, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 69. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 7, 2004, a copy of which is attached. 70. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Authority's transmittal dated July 21, 2004, a copy of which is attached. 71. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 12, 2004, a copy of which is attached. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 18 EXHIBIT B CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (HELlPAD) Planning Application No.: PA07-0202 Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit establishing 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 Assessor's Parcel No. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: TUMF Category; Office Service Commercial/Office Approval Date; Determined by City Council Action Expiration Date: Determined by City Council Action WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. The applicanlldeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars and seventy-five cents ($2,670.75) which includes the Two Thousand Six Hundred Six Dollars and seventy-five cents ($2,606.75) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty-Four Dollar ($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 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicanlldeveloper 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 review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an original signature to the Planning Department. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 19 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 20 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. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201 and PA07-0202. 5. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated June 30, 2004, on file with the Planning Department, unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. 6. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 7. The City, and its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to the modification of the business, a change in scope, emphasis, size or nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council is in addition to, and not in-lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. 8. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. 9. 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. 10. If commencement of the use has not occurred within two years of approval of this permit, the permittee may file an application at lest thirty days prior to expiration of the conditional use permit, apply for up to 3 one-year extensions of time. Each extension of time shall be granted in one-year increments only. 11. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage (Sign Program may be required). G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 21 12. 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. 13. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 14. A construction staging area plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 16. 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. PRIOR TO SUBMITTING HOSPITAL PLANS TO THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF STATEWIDE HEALTH AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (OSHPOD) 17. 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 shall comply with 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.\ Fire Prevention 18. 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. Police Department 19. All exterior lighting surrounding the project site should be energy-saving and minimized after 11 :00 p.m. to comply with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements. 20. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one-foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. 21. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 22. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department immediately so a report can be taken. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 22 23. 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. 24. 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. G:\Planning\2007IPA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUPIPlanningICOA-CUP.doc 23 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 24 Planning Department 25. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer( s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 26. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 27. 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 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." 28. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the Project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 29. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. 30. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. 31. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer. 32. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 33. All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 25 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 26 Planning Department 34. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lotto the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 35. A construction staging area plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit. 36. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, 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. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. c. A note on the plans stating that "Two landscape inspections are required: one inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for final planting inspection." d. A note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." e. One copy of the approved grading plan. f. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). g. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). h. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. i. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper grow1h 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. j. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. 37. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a 3' clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group G:\Planning\20D7\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital GUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 27 utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after- thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. Fire Prevention 38. Prior to building permit or building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads. Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 39. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. 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. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 241-4.1). 40. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones (CFC Appendix II-A). G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecufa Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 28 PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 29 Planning Department 41. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment is visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing appropriate screening reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 42. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 43. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of 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 upon request by the applicant. 44. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (951) 696-3000." 45. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least three square feet in size. 46. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 47. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Fire Prevention 48. Prior to Occupancy and building final, 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). G:IPlanningI2007IPA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital CUPIPlanningICOA-CUP.doc 30 49. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 50. Prior to issuance of Occupancy 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 firefighting personnel (CFC 902.4). 51. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0202 Temecula Regional Hospital GUP\Planning\COA-CUP.doc 31 ATTACHMENT NO.7 PC RESOLUTION 08-_ (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-019a Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 34 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08- 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 APPROVING 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 TEMECULA PARKWAY (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 (PA07-0200)" Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS") filed Planning Application Numbers 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 TemecuJa 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 Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\Oev Plan Resolution (01-09-200B).OOC E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to deterrnine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environrnental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutlons\PC\Dev Plan Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 2 L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Ternecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTSE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for curnulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils rnitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environrnental Irnpact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environrnental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5,2007 through December 5,2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SE1R\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\Dev Plan Resolution (01-09.2008).DOC 3 known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010 Project, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environrnental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recomrnended that the City Council approve the proposed Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA07-0200, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. V. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA07-0200, as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code hereby finds, determines and declares that: 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 Ternecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirernents 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 3. Recomrnendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council approve the proposed 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 Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080- 004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 as set forth in Application No. PA07-0200, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, Draft City Council G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\Dev Plan Resolution (01-09-200B).OOC 4 Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this gth day of January 2008. , Chairman A nEST: 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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of January 2008, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\Dev Plan Resolution (Ol-G9-2008).OOC 5 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 08-_ G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\Dev Plan Resolution (01-09-2008).OOC 6 RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING 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 TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH), APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0200) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The City Council of the City of T emecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application Numbers 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 Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not lirnited to, public notice in the tirne and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environrnental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Comrnission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (lONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, 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 )." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plurne was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from Novernber 5, 2007 through December 5,2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which tirne the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of inforrnation received at the public hearing, the Planning Corn mission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recomrnending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200) V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08- , entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA07-0198 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT), PA07-0199 (ZONE CHANGE), PA07-0202 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS), PA07-0200 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), PA07-0201 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findinas. The City Council hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a development plan: 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 cornply with the uniforrn building and fire codes. Section 3. Conditional ADDroval. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the 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 Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 as set forth in Application No. PA07-0200, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval 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 22nd day of January, 2008 Michael S. Naggar, 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, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 08- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of January, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SCANNED: G DRIVE: PERMITS PLUS: INITIALS: PLANNER: PaOD G:\Planning\2007\PA07 -0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-OP .doc 1 ~ ~ <>~^ 1989 ,#'''' <Jq, O~ TONS. NEW Of\' ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I, (print name) understand that Planning Application No. PA07-0200 has been approved with Conditions of Approval which are set forth in Exhibit A. I have read the Conditions of Approval contained in CC Resolution No. 08- and understand them. Through signing this ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I agree and commit to the City of Temecula that I will implement and abide by the Conditions of Approval, including any indemnification requirements imposed by those conditions. SIGNA TURE DATE G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 2 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA07-0200 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 No. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 MSHCP Category: DIF Category: Commercial Office TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office Approval Date: Determined by City Council Action Expiration Date: Determined by City Council Action WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. 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 Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars and seventy-five cents ($2,670.75) which includes the Two Thousand Six Hundred Six Dollar and seventy-five cents ($2,606.75) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty-Four Dollar ($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 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 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 review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an original signature to the Planning Department. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 4 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. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 5. 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. 6. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within 30 days prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 8. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be submitted for review and approval for the project site. 9. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of the building for Planning Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. 12. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital OP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 5 13. 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 Color Stucco Color NO.1: Stucco Color NO.2: Tile Base: Aluminum Panel: Ceramic Roof Tile: Tinted Glass: Window Frame: Senergy, Parchment, # 342 Senergy, Walden, # 3104 Daltile, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red CS51 Centria, 9910 LT Seawolf Monier Lifetile, Terra Cotta Flashed Viracon, Bronze VE 4-2M Kawneer, Medium Bronze Kynar 500 Fluorocarbon 14. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. 15. 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. 16. All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A three foot 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. 17. The applicant shall insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities, adjacent site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines. 18. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape Design) are required to be met. 19. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as attached. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-OP.doc 6 Police Department 20. 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. 21. Crime Prevention: Any business desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the crime prevention unit of the T emecula Police Department. 22. 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. 23. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at a height of no more than three feet 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 Desi9n (CPTED). 24. 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. 25. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. Building Department 26. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 27. 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 re:;idence. 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 28. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-Q200 Temecuta Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 7 29. All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a regular solid waste container. 30. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways, perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting. 31. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. Fire Prevention 32. 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. 33. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential 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 4,000 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). 34. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 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 (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B). , 35. All traffic calming devices that could impede or slow emergency vehicle access are prohibited, except those expressly approved by the fire prevention bureau individually on a case by case basis when they maintain the required travel widths and radii. 36. 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). This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. Public Works Department 37. 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. 38. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 8 39. 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. 40. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or property owner. 41. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 42. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in movements. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Ternecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 9 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital OP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 10 Planning Department 43. 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. 44. 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 four 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 five feet wide with the length equal to the adjoining parking space. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this five foot 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. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and structures, excluding trash enclosures. 50. Trash enclosures shall be shown on 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 11 c. Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide shrubs and wall vines on three sides of enclosures as required to provide screening. 51. 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. 52. 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 1710.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code. 53. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer( s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 54. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 55. 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 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." 56. CR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the Project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 57. CR-2 If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. G;\Planning\2007\PA07:"0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA.DP.doc 12 58. CR-3 A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. 59. CR-4 Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer. 60. CR-5 The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 61. CR-6 All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. 62. A qualified paleontologisUarchaeologist 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 paleontologisU archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologisUarchaeologist 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. 63. 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. 64. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreemenUtreatment 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 agreemenUtreatment 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 agreemenUtreatment 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 agreemenUtreatment plan to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 65. 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. 66. 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 Sand 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 13 67. 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. 68. 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. 69. 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 five-foot landscape dimension for all parking islands, including the 1-foot concrete landing strip (seven feet total width). One parking island is required per ten parking spaces. Public Works Department 70. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydral:llic 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. 71. 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. 72. 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. 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. 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 G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DPIPlanningICOA-OP.doc 14 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. 76. 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. 77. 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 78. 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. 79. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 80. 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. 81. 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. 82. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 15 Fire Prevention 83. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial (CFC 9022.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4). 84. Cul-de-sacs and/or intersections with planters must maintain 24-foot clear unobstructed travel width around the planters, not including parking. Hardscape areas are permissible provided that they meet the 80,000 lb. load requirements and are at road level. 85. Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road. 86. 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). 87. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways 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). G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 16 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 17 Planning Department 88. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 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. 89. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the grow1h potential of the parking lot trees. 90. 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. 91. 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. 92. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan for the helipad facility. 93. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, 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. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. c. A note on the plans stating that "Two landscape inspections are required: one inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for final planting inspection". d. A note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." e. One copy of the approved grading plan. f. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). g. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). h. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. i. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper grow1h and G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 18 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. j. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two (2) hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to- head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicanUowner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. 94. 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 feet 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 five foot width planting area shall be provided at the ends of all parking rows. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this five foot 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-inch box size) shall be installed at entries to parking areas in order to define the entry and provide a focal point. 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 as approved by the Director of Planning. 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-inchand 36-inch 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital OP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 19 I. The landscaped area along Highway 79 South shall include a meandering benTI 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 three feet 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. 95. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 96. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, and hardscape) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 97. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 98. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a nine-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard nine-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. 99. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 100. All exterior wall mounted ladders (for all buildings) shall be located in a manner thatthey are not visible from Highway 79 South. Public Works Department 101. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 102. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of T emecula Standards subjeclto approval by the Director of the Department of Pu blic 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 20 d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Numbers. 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. 103. 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. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) 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' R/W) 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. d. The traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way shall be modified to allow a full movement intersection. 104. 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' R/W) 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. 105. 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, turb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic si9nal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 106. 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. The Traffic Control Plan shall indicate that construction traffic may not use the entrance from DePortola Road to access the site. 107. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital OP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 21 108. 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. 109. 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. 110. 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. In addition to the above Public Works Department Conditions of Approval, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED 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) 111. Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 112. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City ofTemecula 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' R/W) 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 b. 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 c. 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital OP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 22 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' R/W) 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. 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. 113. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2007 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code 2005 Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 114. 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. 115. 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. 116. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 117. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). 118. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 119. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 120. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 23 121. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 122. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 123. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 124. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. 125. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Community Services Department 126. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 127. 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. Fire Department 128. Prior to building permit or building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Departmeni vehicle access roads. Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 129. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. 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. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1). 130. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones (CFC Appendix II-A). G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecu[a Regional Hospital OP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 24 PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 25 Planning Department 131. 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 ofTemecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. 132. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 133. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 134. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of 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 upon request by the applicant. 135. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (951) 696-3000." 136. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least three square feet in size. 137. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. G:\Planning\2007\PAD7-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 26 138. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Public Works Department PHASE I - A 170-bed hospital with 80,000 square foot medical office space. 139. 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 (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. 28-foot wide internal ingress/egress connection from project site to De Portola Road 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 G;\Planning\2007\PA07 -0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP .doc 27 PHASE II - Expand to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space. 140. 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 141. 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. 142. 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. Building and Safety Department 143. 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. Fire Prevention 144. Prior to Occupancy and building final, 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). 145. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 146. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy 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 firefighting personnel (CFC 902.4). 147. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 28 Police Department 148. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 149. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-G200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 29 OUTSIDE AGENCIES G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital OP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 30 150. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated July 24, 2004, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 151. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 7, 2007, a copy of which is attached. 152. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Authority's transmittal dated July 21, 2004, a copy of which is attached. 153. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 12, 2004, a copy of which is attached. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0200 Temecula Regional Hospital DP\Planning\COA-DP.doc 31 "' r\.~." JJ. YV lL.....rt.V!,:) General Managec-aiief Engineer 1995 MARKET STREET RIVBRSIDE, CA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX .', mao.! RIVER.1s1UC, COUNTY FLOOD CONTR r~ @ ~ 0 w ~ -- AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTR JUL 2 8 2004 -' C!lY ofTemecula Planning DeDartrnent Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, Calltomla 92589-9033 AttenIlo~. ~ IJ6.Jb By ladles and GenUemen: Re: .1'A O"'-b"r..'l. t. p,e.. ot-o~<.3 111e District does not nonnaDy reconvnend condiUons for land divisions or other land use cases In Il1CQl1lOIllled cities. l11e District also does not DIan check c;Ity land use cases, or ~ Stale Dlvtslon of Real Eslate lelteIs or other IIood hazard I'eIlOrts for such cases. Dlslilcl commentsheciomrilendalfons for' &UCh cases are normally Umlted to Items of s~ Interest to the DIstrlct IncIld.ng DIstrIct Master Dnlfnaae Pllll! fac:lIltIes, olher reglorial load control and dill/nage facIIltles whlch.~ be CllllSkIlIIed a!ogk;al ... 1'."" Tor extension of a master pIl!f\ svsIem, and District Area [)raInage Plan fees (det ;:." .Ill mIllgalIoii fees). In addlUon; information of a general nalure Is provided.' ., 1l1e District has nol reviewed the Jlf!lPO$8CI projeclln detalI and the foIIowl!lll checked ooIi1menls do nollll ~ way constitule or !.n1PIY DIstrict ~ or llI1dOnlement of the proposed project with mspeel to ftood hazard, public health and safelY.or any other such Issue: . . ThIs prq~ wl!Uld not be impaCted by DIstricl Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of reglonal....~,~_ proposed. . ,$- ThIs project Involves District Master Plan facilities. 1l1e DlstricI wUl accept ownershiP of such facilities on written request of the Qity. Facilities must be consbucled 10 District standards, and DiS~ elan check, and In~on wUl be required for District acceplarlce. Plan check, Ins,..'::... and admInl e fees wlll be required. . . . ThIs Pllllect prqposes chameIs, sIonn drains 36 incI!es or !;uger In diameter, or other facilities that coukf be consIdeied regIOnal In nature andfor a IoaIcaJ ~... ,~.on of the adopted Master Draina~ Plan. 1l1e District wcula consider ~ ownershlo or sucn I3CIllUes on wnuen ~ueSl of the c;lty. F8cIIltIes must be constructed to DIstrict stancIa11Is, and DlsIrlct ~ check and InsP!lClfor\ wln be requlllidfor DIstrict acceplance. Plan check, Inspection and iId . ;.,,"" ...:.'8 fees wlU be requJred. 1hls ~ Is located within the UmIts of the DIslricl's . Area Drail)llge Plan for which drainage fees have been adOllled; allllMcable tees ShOukl. De pal<l by cashier's check or money order Q!IIy to !fie Flood Control Dlstrlcil P!ior to Issuance of buI/dll!lJ or gradll)!! perin/Is whichever comes firsl Fees to be paid should be at the rate In effect at the time of 1Ssuai1ce of the.actual pennIt. . .GENERAL INFORMAnON 111ls project may require a NatlonaJ P~!;II8charge EUmInaIIon ~ (NPDES) J!OOl)it from the Stale Water Resources Control Soard. Clearance for ,grading, reciOrdatfon, or oUler final 'W' '. ihould not be glven unlillhe .Cltyhas determined t/:Ilrt.thd pl'Ojecthas beengrentad a pennlterl8'8hown tobeex~ . If this profect Involves a Federal ~ Mana~ ~ncy (FEMAl I1IIIpP.8d I\OOd plain, then the ClIy shotJd require tfie ~tlo ~e aU itudI.Jll', c;l!kUaUons, P!aM 8nd'olher irifonnatlon ~Ii'ed to meal FEMA ~IrementsJ 8nd should further ~ mat the apJl{lc!lril Obtaln a CondltIonaI letter of Mi!P Revision {ClOMR) prior 10 gradIng, recordatlon or oIhet llnaI approval Of the projecl. and a letter of Map RevISion (lOMR) prfor to occupancy. If a natural ..:,' _ _ Jl'8e or l1!8Pped ftood JlIak! Is lmoacted !!Y this project, the City should re<t!llre the appllcant to obtain a SectIon 1601/1603 A.;,. '.; ,.''', frOm the CalIfoln1a Dep8/tIll8Il\ of Ash aIlcf Game and a Clean Water Ad Sectkl!1 404 Pennlt from the U.S. f!otmy Corps of En~, or written ~ from \I:Iese 8lI~es =~~s~:=~=~;mrwaie/~==~4~1:~~C~;4~ perinll X ,.tl ~~,Jr Pli/4..\'''' 5'/t.Jt1.L. lle D~rM,Jet> fttl.. /o+Jo{ .JOf.1'- WI'T'fHtJ r~ blS~ c.r p.t~~ -()f'- ""I<'{ 'F--.J rrtt 1:>1~c.r AlrGI'-ITl~. "~M\!!.~,^~ q~(.. ~../ c:....M Very truly VOlIn;, ~4 ARTURO DIAZ SenIor CIvIl Engineer Dale:~/JI' ..2~...2tll:I , . . . ~~ ,',. Iuly 7, 2004 ....0: . COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · COMMUNI1Y HEALTH AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH city of TemecuJa PI8IIIling Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Dan Long - ~llij~ ~ ~ ~~j By .,--- -~ ~--. -- I RE: Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 I i , Dear Mr. Long: Department'of Environment8I 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 con~_"':"'g those services. :. I , , , I i 1 I I I I I I I ;. . PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLWWING SHOULD BE REQ~: . a) ''WiU-serve" letters from the ~H'" ..,:ate water and sewering districts. b) Any food establishments, (including ~ending machines), shall require three complete sets of plans for each food estabUsbment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure ~y.......Uance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific re!;,.;,_y~, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330. c) Any hazardous materials handling or stomge shall require a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955- 5055) Sincerely, Sam MartInez, Supervising rL L, .,..waI Health SpcMol!.t (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current odditioaal requ',. ."'...~ not coveRd c:aa be applicable at time or BuildiDg PIm review for final Department off,." \ .'. "llIltal HcaIth clearance. . cc: . Doug ThompsOD, Hazardous MatcriaIs , I feat Eldvrco....t A_ ' P'Q Box 1280. Rivmide. CA 92502-1280 . ('J09J 955-8982 . t;\X (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Slreet, 9lhFloo< _de, CA 92501 fad u.. ODd Water Eo ".,.. ""., . P.Q IlaK 1206. _, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-$80.00( (909) 955-8903 . 4080 !.-on Sbeet, 2nd Floor, RIwnide, CA 92501 i. I. I I i I I 1 I I ;. , I · ~ , A '- - R1Y_hIo T......H AlIO""l' 182511*d S1ree1 P.O. Box 59968 RlveIslde. CA 92517-1968' _; (909) 565-5000 Fax: (909) 565-5001 July 21, 2004 Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner Planning Dept, City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: P04.0462 and PA04-6463 - Temecula Hospltal- Comments from RTA Dear Mr: Long: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the ,.. ......"..ad 535,000 sq ft medical complex at Temecula Hospital along Stale 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 TemeClita Hospital, RTA recommends the site plim or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features: . A paved, lighted, and ADA-compIlant.translt bus stop with a 220 ft-long turnout conflgura- . lion capable of o_........:ollng two part(ed buses, to be Instaned along the N side of SR 79. just west of the prill18/Y hospital entrance. The bus stop should incorporate a paved passenger waltfng area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters. .. 1'.L.....::on note: Sufficient r1ght-{)f-way appears available for this turnout without significant adjustment to sidewalks. loss of parl<ing spaces or required landscaping and with minimum disturbance of future street trae or utility structure Installations. .RTA staff Is also ,..w...mendlng 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'adVlses that the project proponents work with the City to Install two new passenger shelters at the new bus slop that are corilpRmentary 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 cIariflcation or I can be of further assistance, please can me at (909) 565-5164 or contact me online at mmcmv/iilriversldetransltcom. S!,::' 7J n '/~'~/ Michael McCoy Senior Planner F:'dataIPlannlnglMlkeM\Wool\Dev Re..........Temecula\2004\RTA LIIt1d - Temec Hosp.doc , lIrA .- .- -....-~ July 21,2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To: Anne Palatino, Director of Planning Michael McCoy, Senior Planner ~ City ofTemerola. Cases PA04-0462 & -4463: Plot Plan review ancfCUP for 535.000 sq ft of hospital and medlcal-f'elated facilities, N of State Route (SR) 79 and W of Margarita Rd; RIverside Transit Agency (RTA) Comments Bus routes Involved: ExIsting Route 24 and futu'e bus routes From: Subject: Summary: Universal Health Care ServIces Inc ...'... ...as a site plan and conditional use pennlt for the Temecula HospItal project, 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35 now vacant acres % mile west of the SR79-Margar1ta Rd Intersection In a rapidly expanding commercial district of Temec:uta. Thls wIll be the first full-faclllty medicallnsUtutIon In Southwest RIversIde County and will be a distinct asset to the ..' "mlty, challenging planners and engIneers to provide a robust suite of mobility options for access to It The project Includes the fonowlng components: . 176-bed, 6-story hospital building, Including Emergency admittance . A 5-story~...~...slon of Ute hospital . Two mulU-6tory medical office buildings . Cancer center . Fitness center . 1280 parking spaces The site plan's perimeter and Interior clrculation patterns are very good, with primary access provided dlreCtJy off a signalized IntersectIon at SR 79 and Country GI9I1 Wy. The hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drlve-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 an perimeter driveways. RTA op,rates Route 24 along some portions of.SR79 but the bus currently does not stop at this site. RTA Is currently sltldylng a general reconflguratJon. of bus routes In South. .west RIverside County and antlclpates 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 eountles. In some Cases, such as Route 17, the hospital Is Important enough to be the route tennlnus or name of the line as identified on the bus Itself. Also, several distinct transit routes often serve a sIngle large h~pltal, 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 pubUcly owned, such as RIverside F:\datalPlannlnglMikeM\WonlIOev Revlew\TemeaJlal2OO4\TemeculaHosp.doc County General Medical Center In Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like Kaiser or San Gorgoolo, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby street. Some examples of transit service and stops are: I. . Kaiser HospItal In RiversIde: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having 1. mulUple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc; : . Loma Unda 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 Reglona' Mad ctr: 2 lines,' bus stops along S Main St, off the property; . St Bernardlne Mad ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland VaDey Regional Medical ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon Its full bulld-oul RT A staff believes RIverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop conflgu~on would be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the fonner 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 ass~ated 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 slgnarlZed Intersection with Country Glen Wy and the primary hospital entrance. The stop's taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end of the IntersecUon's radius and extend for no less than 220 It to accommodate two parlted buses. The exact poslUon 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 tumout Is 10 It, however this may be reduced to 5 ft If a designa- ted, striped bike path Is Installed along this portion of State Highway 79. I. I , I I i , , J. I I. I I I 1 ;. . Additionally, RTA requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the main building going dIIectIy out to the requested bus stop location. . RTA staff also requests that the project proponents consider Investing In some' additional architectural amenltl8S 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, .,' ,.~:nlng the ',,,,, Inlty/mage ofTemecula. Becauseth/s facility wnl be one of the most well-known and visited places In the city, Its bus stop Is deserving of a hlglHjuallty bench and shelter that are visually compatible and compDmentary to the main building architectural theme. n.e applicant's architect or engineers are urged to contact RTA staff for further details. RT A staff will request the mulU~y bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above be made conditions of approval for Cases 04-0462 and 04;0463. RTA staff will worlt 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:\datalPlanoinglMlkeM\WordIOev Review\Temeculal2OO4\TemeculaHosp.dOc / " @ Rancho Water July 12, 2004 SUBJECf: "~~;';.'.) ,,"// . 1"// of' 0' ~ ~~> ~ ~/. ..p~ ~.J'} ?2 ~@ 0'1 ~~ WATER AVAILABILITY, TEME 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 BoardoCI>irec:tori .raluaE.1IoacWa4 .......... CMIt.P.1M Sr. VIllI PreIWeDt BUpIum..1. Cor-... _lLDa'4' _a Dub u.. D.1Ienu.a loIuaV.Hoai Dear Mr. Long: Please be advised that the above-referenced ""u,,".~J is located within the boundiuies of Rancho California Waf<< District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off- site waf<< facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the ",u""'~J owner. 0"..." B.........BncIT "-"- .........- or...ct.oror.. B.P. .........1.eevM _.r_ Peft7B. Uuk """"""" ......IL_ Diatrict~MmloiIIn.u... -- o.llIkboI.,...... a-t....1trlecer1LP ......,~ If fire ",~,"u';on is required; the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the ",~,,".~J owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns waf<< 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 2O-foot-wide easement, which is located such that no permanent structures or trees are locited within its boundaries. The projeCt proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these req$numts. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CAlJFORNIA WA1'ERDISTRICf c: Laurie Williams. Engineering Services Supenisor Bud Jones. P.Ilgl,.....jng Project Coordinaroc a-daoc.a........ae. DWdd GlS5WbacL.t.era-. . PIllt0tricaB.901T. ,.--.,c.us..laf25ll9.eDIT . (909)2N.4900.FAX(toI)28f.6860 .. . . / ATTACHMENT NO.8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-_ (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 35 PC RESOLUTION NO. 08- 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 APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO ONE PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH), APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0201)" Section 1. Procedural Findinos. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS") filed Planning Application Numbers 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 Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Oraft Resolutions\PC\TPM Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC F. A Draft Environrnentallrnpact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from Septernber 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Cornmission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-05, recomrnending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 (PA04-0571). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of inforrnation received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT), PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\TPM Resolution (01-09-2008).OOC 2 M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-08, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 (PA04-0571). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Irnpact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environrnental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environrnental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5,2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan) and PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Ternecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\TPM Resolution (01-09-2008).OOC 3 T. Following consideration of the entire record of inforrnation received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recornmending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Comrnission recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 (PA07-0201), subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. V. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findinas. The Planning Cornmission, in recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468, Planning Application No. PA07-0201, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are 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. 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 improvernents 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SE1R\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\TPM Resolution (01-09-200a).OOc 4 H. The subdivision is a commercial Project and is not subject to Quimby fees. Section 3. Recornmendation. The Planning Cornmission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468, Planning Application No. PA07-0201, consolidating eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel, for the property generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Draft City Council Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\TPM Resolution (01-09-200B).OOC 5 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 9th day of January 2008. , 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 the forgoing PC Resolution No. 08-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of January 2008, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\TPM Resolution (01-09-2008).OOC 6 EXHIBIT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 08-_ G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA. SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\Draft Resolutions\PC\TPM Resolution (01-09-2008).DOC 7 RESOLUTION NO. 08-_ 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 ONE PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH), APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0201) THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF TEMECUlA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOllOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findinas. 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 Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Developrnent 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 Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Cornrnission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Irnpact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-05, recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 (PA04-0571). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT), PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-08, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 (PA04-0571). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTSE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from Novernber 5,2007 through December 5,2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendrnent), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan) and PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- 007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Comrnission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-06, recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 (PA07-0201). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Nurnbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 (PA07 -0201). at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08- , entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS PA07-0198 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT), PA07-0199 (ZONE CHANGE), PA07-0202 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS), PA07-0200 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), PA07-0201 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 )." The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby rnakes 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; 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; 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 Gaoling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easernents 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; and H. The subdivision is a comrnercial Project and is not subject to Quimby fees. Section 3. Conditional Aooroval. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468, Planning Application No. PA07- 0201, 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 Assessor's Parcel Nurnbers. 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, Draft City Council Resolution, 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 22nd day of January 2008. Michael S. Naggar, 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 Ternecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 08-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of January 2008, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SCANNED: G DRIVE: PERMITS PLUS: INITIALS: PLANNER: G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 1 Pace 0" 'TEAt:!' ~~ Co-. 0- '<." ~ ~ :. -, ~ ~ oO~^ 1989 ~-+~ <I~ O<r IONS. NEW Off ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I, (print name) understand that Planning Application No. PA07-0201 has been approved with Conditions of Approval which are set forth in Exhibit A. I have read the Conditions of Approval contained in CC Resolution No. 08-04 and understand them. Through signing this ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I agree and commit to the City of Temecula that I will implement and abide by the Conditions of Approval, including any indemnification requirements imposed by those conditions. SIGNA TURE DATE G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 2 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA07-0201 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 Nos.: 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Office TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office Approval Date: Determined by City Council Action Expiration Date: Determined by City Council Action WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. 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 Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Dollars and seventy five cents ($2,670.75) which includes the Two Thousand Six Hundred Six Dollar and seventy five cents ($2,606.75) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty-Four Dollar ($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 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 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 the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the documents with an original signature to the Planning Department. G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPMIPlanningICOA-TPM.doc 3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS G:IPlanning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPMIPlanningICOA-TPM.doc 4 3. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, 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 60 days prior to the expiration date. 4. 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. 5. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a Dhasino olan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. 6. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Supplemental EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project (SCH No. 2005031017). 7. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. 8. 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. 9. All the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Public Works Department 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 5 13. 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 T emecula mylars. 14. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or property owner. 15. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 16. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in movements. Fire Prevention 17. 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. 18. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential 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 4,000 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). 19. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be lo'cated no more than 210 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 (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B). 20. All traffic calming devices that could impede or slow emergency vehicle access are prohibited, except those expressly approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau individually on a case by case basis when they maintain the required travel widths and radii. 21. 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). This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 6 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS G:\Plannlng\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 7 22. 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 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." 23. A copy of the rough grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 24. CR-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the Project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 25. CR-2 If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. 26. CR-3 A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. 27. CR-4 Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and ground breaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer. 28. CR-5 The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. 29. CR-6 All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. 30. A qualified paleontologisVarchaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontolo9ical/ 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 8 shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 31. 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. 32. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreemenUtreatment 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 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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. Public Works Department 37. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of TemecuJa 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. 38. 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. G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPMIPlanningICOA-TPM.doc 9 39. 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. Fire Prevention 40. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4). 41. Cul-de-sacs and/or intersections with planters must maintain 24 foot clear unobstructed travel width around the planters, not including parking. Hardscape areas are permissible provided that they meet the 80,000 lb. load requirements and are at road level. 42. Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road. 43. 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). 44. 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). G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 10 PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP G:IPlanning\2007IPA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPMIPlanningICOA-TPM.doc 11 45. 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 (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. ii. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2005031017 was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. iii. This project is within a 100 year flood hazard zone. iv. This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. v. This project is 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 and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and aU landscaped and open areas including parkways. 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 residents. 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, management, 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 maintained 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 12 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. Every owner of a suite or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such suite or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. x. 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. xi. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parceis and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by the CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. xii. In the event the project site is subdivided into multiple parcels, An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs to read as follows: Article CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA _1. The Conditions of Approval of [Tentative Tract]/[Parcel] Map No._ requires the City to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. _2. Declarant acknowledges that the City has reviewed these CC&Rs and that its review is limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs property implement the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessment procedures, assessment enforcement, resolution of disputes or procedural matters. _3. In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the land use entitlements issued by the City for the Parcel or Federal, State, or local laws, ordinances, and regulations and these CC&Rs, the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and federal, state or local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding the language of the CC&Rs. _4. These CC&Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise modified without the express written consent of the Director of Planning of the City of Temecula. xiii. In the event the project site is subdivided into multiple parcels, An Article must be added to every set of CC&Rs, following the Declarant's signature, to read as follows: G:\Planning\2007\PA07 -0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA- TPM.doc 13 CONSENT OF CITY OF TEMECULA The Conditions of Approval for [Tentative Tract]/[Parcel] Map No. _ require the City of Temecula to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Parcel. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the conditions of approval for the Parcel. The City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements, architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of assessments, resolutions of disputes or procedural matters. Subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs. Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning Approved as to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 46. In the event the project site is subdivided into multiple parcels, no lot or suite in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or suites and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 47. In the event the project site is subdivided into multiple parcels, CC&Rs shall be finalized and recorded at the time of Final Map Recordation. 48. In the event the project site is subdivided into multiple parcels, three copies of the final recorded CC&Rs shall be provided to the Planning Department. 49. All ofthe foregoing conditions shall be complied with priorto occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 14 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 50. 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 51. 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 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' R/W) 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. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap. G:\Planning\2007IPA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPMIPlanningICOA-TPM.doc 15 52. 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' R/W) 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 53. 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 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 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 16 57. 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. 58. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 59. 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. 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Department of Public Works. 65. 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 shalf be kept free of buildings and obstructions. " Fire Prevention 66. 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 Arcfnfo/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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 17 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS G',IPlanningI2007IPA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospilal TPMIPlanningICOA-TPM,doc 18 Public Works 67. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 68. 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. 69. 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. 70. 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. 71. 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. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 19 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc ,20 Public Works 72. 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 (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' RIW) 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' RIW) 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 G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 21 73. 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 74. 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. 75. 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. Fire Prevention 76. Prior to Occupancy and building final, 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). 77. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 78. Prior to issuance of Occupancy 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 firefighting personnel (CFC 902.4). G:\Planning\2007\PA07.0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\PJanning\COA-TPM.doc 22 OUTSIDE AGENCIES G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 23 79. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated January 19, 2005, a copy of which is attached. 80. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Califomia Water District's transmittal dated November 19, 2004, a copy of which is attached. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0201 Temecula Regional Hospital TPM\Planning\COA-TPM.doc 24 ;~ COUNTI OF RIVERSIDE · COMMUNrrv HEAlJH AGENCY . ~~ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH :. , , I i , I i. I I I I I I I I 1. July 7, 2004 '~~ .~ ~ ~ IJ I~~I JC:" " 1/ /:904 il i...- City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 TemecuJa, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Dan Long By_ RE: Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04..()463 Dear Mr. Long: D........;...ent of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 to construct Temecula Regional Hospital and has no objections. Warer and sewer services should be available in this area, although we have not iIi .......:..; of any information concerning those services. , , PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE REQUIRED: a) "Will.serve" letters from the "r""''''':.ate water and scweringdistricts. b) Any food establisbments. (mcluding vending machines), sha1I require three complete sets of plans for each food establisbment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, R finish schedule and a plwnbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Unifonn Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific __~.._ __,;c, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330. c) Any hazardous materials handling or storage shall require a clearance letter from the Department ofEnvironmenta1 Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955- 5055) Sincerely, Sam Martinez, SupervIsing Envlronmeota1 Health SpcciaIist (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any ~~._~ additionallalU.'........::S not ~.' ~_J caD be applicable at time of Bnilding PIan review for fuiaI Department ofr:.., ,,;, .",.,.enta1 Health clell'8llcc. 00: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Local Eaf.rc;o...od Age"", . P.O. Box 1280, _de, CA 92502-1280 . (909) 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon SIne\, 9Ih Roo< Riverside, CA 92501 ~ Uk ..... W.1er fatIaoulaa . P.O. Box 1206, R1......;de, CA 92502.1206 . (909) 955-8980 . Il\X (909) ~ . 4080 !Amon SlJeot, 2nd Roar; Riwrslde, CA 92501 r (~ Rancho later 8ollrdolOinctori .rohaB.~ """'.... c..ba P. Eo . Sr.Y_~t S~J.c--. Ralv. H. Da1It' Be:o R. Drake LkaD.Bcl'llWl ololuaV.a-.I """""" ~J.B"'47 "-"- PIdlIfp L Fon.. DiAdI:Ir.~~ 1tP. "BoIi'l--. "'-'rof--., p"",, B. Loac:k """""'" """"M._ '""""-............... -- 0."""'" eo.- 8c.t Bed" Kd.eftr LLP """'" c.w...J July 12, 2004 SUBJECT: .-- of:>..) ./'"h"" . ~)~ #/> .,p~ (/.J> .{2 o/@ :;'l ~~ WATER AVAILABILITY, TEME 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 Dear Mr. Long: Please be advised that the above-referenced ",u"~';J' 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 ".""...../ owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the "."..~.;/ 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 ...U"U~ to relocate RCWD's 12-inch discharge pipeline and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline mWlt be contained within a minimum 2O-foot-wide easement, which is located such that no pennanent structures or tIccs are located within its boundaries. The project proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these requL~_.......s. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER uU> lKlCf 'In.:/ ()/z ~c~e~erpe:er, P Development Engineering OOMM:mc018ll'Cl' c: Law;" Williams. Engin=iog Services Supervisor Bud Jones. F ,,,;,. __:,,"Project C. ...;:...... Ilaadto c.IIfonala w.... DImiet 421S5W"~RoeI. . PwtOflicloBa.9G11 . ~Cali'-iaf2589.9011 . {tOJ)2N-<<KlO. PAX (lOP) 2H-686O . I. . .I ATTACHMENT NO.9 RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (SEIR) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA. SE1R\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT-doc 36 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report I Response to Comments SCH # 2005031017 Prepared for: City of Temecula January 2008 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report / Response to Comments SCH # 2005031017 Prepared for: City of T emecula January 2008 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.??oo www.esassoc.com Los Angekls Oakland Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hals 207434 "'.ESA ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report I Response to Comments Paoe 1. Introduction 1-1 2. Response to Comments 2-1 TemeaJla Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Enllironmentallmpad: Report ESA I 0201434 """",,2008 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This document constitutes the Response to Comments received on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) received during the public review period. The public review period ran from November 2, 2007 to December 3, 2007. Requirements for the preparation and disposition pfResponse to comment are provided for in PRC, Division 13, Section 21092.5 and Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15088 of the CEQA Guideline states: (a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. (b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. (c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the Lead Agency should either: (I) Revise the text in the body of the EIR, or (2) Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. TemecuIa RegiooaI Hospital Final SUpplemental f '. . 1I1~ R8potI 1-1 ESA I 0207434 ,,,,,,,,,,2006 CHAPTER 2 Response to Comments Comment letters were received from the following agencies and interested parties during the public review period for the Draft SEIR: I. Stale of California, Governor's Office of Planning & Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit - December 4, 2007 2. State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control- December 4,2007 3. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - November 20, 2007 Individual comments are noted and numbered in the margin of the comment letters and the responses to the individual comment follow the letter with a corresponding response number. State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control I. The comment restates the City of Temecula project entitlement actions contained in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. 2. The comment restates the Riverside County Superior Court's actions and requirements contained in the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. 3. The Draft EIR concludes that no MTBE or VOC contamination currently affects the project site. SCS Engineers completed a comprehensive subsurface investigation and found no detectable VOC or MTBE concentrations in the soil or groundwater above required laboratory reporting limits. Sampling on site was done only because of known contamination in the underground water table in the vicinity of the project generated by nearby service stations, which are subject to a clean up order. Sampling on site found no contamination of the project site. The sampling on site was done according to approved and accepted industry standards and is fully summarized in Chapter 3.1 of the SEIR and fully reported in the Soils Report in the appendices. 4. The Draft EIR concludes that no MTBE or VOC contamination currently affects the project site. SCS Engineers completed a comprehensive subsurface investigation and found no detectable VOC or MTBE concentrations in the soil or groundwater above TemecuIa Regional HospIIaI FIIlaI SUpplemental EnWomlental t~d RepoI'I 2-1 ESA f 0207434 Jan...., 2008 2. Response to Comments required laboratory reporting limits. Sampling on site was done only because of known contamination in the underground water table in the vicinity of the project generated by nearby service stations, which are subject to a clean up order. Sampling on site found no contamination of the project site. The sampling on site was done according to approved and accepted industry standards and is fully summarized in Chapter 3.1 of the SEIR and fully reported in the Soils Report in the appendices. Should any subsurface contamination be encountered during grading operations, mitigation measure 3.1-2 contained in the Draft EIR shall be implemented. 5. The comment is noted. As stated in Chapter 3.1 of the SEIR, there was no evidence of contaminated soil on the proposed hospital site based on the investigations conducted by SCS Engineers. Additionally, SCS Engineers concluded that contaminated soil was unlikely to be present at the proposed hospital site, as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate hazardous waste. However, should the unlikelihood arise that hazardous waste is generated by the proposed project, it shall be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (CHSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5). 6. As previously stated in response #5, there was no evidence of contaminated soil on the proposed hospital site based on the investigations conducted by SCS Engineers. Additionally, SCS Engineers concluded that contaminated soil was unlikely to be present at the proposed hospital site, as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate hazardous waste. However, should the unlikelihood arise that hazardous waste is generated by the proposed project, the project applicant will contact OTSC to determine if any hazardous waste storage, treatment or disposal permits will be required for the proposed onsite hospital and medical operations. 7. As previously stated in response #5, there was no evidence of contaminated soil on the proposed hospital site based on the investigations conducted by SCS Engineers. Additionally, SCS Engineers concluded that contaminated soil was unlikely to be present at the proposed hospital site, as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate hazardous waste. However, should the unlikelihood arise that hazardous waste is generated by the proposed I?roject, the project applicant will contact the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUP A) to determine if any authorization will be required for the proposed onsite hospital and medical operations. Te:necuIa Regi(x1a1 Hospital Final SUpplemental EnvinJnmentallqJacl Report 2.2 ESA , 0207434 J"""",,2008 2. Response to Comments State of California, Governor's Office of Planning & Research 1. The comment indicates that the SEIR was circulated to selected state agencies by the State Clearinghouse and that no state agencies provided comments on the Draft EIR. No additional response is required. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I. The comment indicates that the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has no comments on the proposed project. No additional response it required. Temecula Regional HospItal Final SUpplemental En'Vironment<lllrflJad Report 2.3 ESA I 0207434 ,,,,,,,,,,2006 e "I :o~~(c;'~n\v)'~'D" . , j I ,.~'" 1: i, '''HH'l -~ ,n nL 1:\ L0,17 - -:- By ~ Department of Toxic Substances Co~,if1qlJelJaltment Linda S. Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection Maureen F. Gorsen, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Decernber 4,2007 Mr. Emery J. Papp City ofTemecula, Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL (SCH#2005031017) Dear Mr. Papp: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted (EIR) document for the above-mentioned project. As stated in your document: "The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9), Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and a Conditional Use Permit. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the 22 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 is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDQ-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height of up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for the hospital bed towers. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Penmit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. 1 On January 24, 2006, the City of Temecula certified a Project EIR for the project. Subsequent to certification, a legal challenge to the Project EIR was filed with Riverside County Superior Court. This Supplemental to certification, a legal challenge to the Project EIR was filed with Riverside County Superior Court. This Supplemental EIR was prepared to further analyze issues the court ruled were not adequately covered in the Project EIR. The issues identified by the court as needing further analysis include: construction noise impacts; siren noise impacts; clarification of project specific and cumulative projects traffic mitigation; and potential impacts to the site from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether plumes, under remediation, in proximity of the project site". 2 @ Printed OIl Recycled Paper Mr. Emery J. Papp December 4, 2007 Page 2 DTSC sent you original EIR comments on August 9, 2007. DTSC has additional comments on the EIR report as follows: 1. 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 waste cleanup. The findings and sampling results from the subsequent report should be clearly summarized in the EIR. 2. 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. 3. 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 Califomia 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). If so, the facility should obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. 4. If hazardous 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 detenmine the penmitting process applicable to the facility. 5. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Infonmation about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5461 or call Mr. AI Shami, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5472 or at "ashami@dtsc.ca.gov". Sincerely, ff};/// /if7' ~;'1J(~ Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: See next page 3 4 5 6 7 t Mr. Emery J. Papp December 4, 2007 Page 3 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, Califomia 95812-0806 CEQA # 1932 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~.,,~ (~) 'f.,"'''Cl~# GoVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND REsEARCH STATE CLEARlNGHOUSE.AND PLANNING UNIT AnNOLDSCHWARZENBGGBR GOVERNOR C'l!mrrA BaYA,,"r DIRECrOR December 4, 2007 . jgC~ Il WI rJ r \g~ ute 1- 3 20U7rg, a By Plannltlgfi *G,L,ent Emery J. Papp City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Temecula Regional Hospital SCH#: 2005031017 Dear Emery J. Papp: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Supplemental E1R to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on December 3, 2007, and no stllte agencies submitted w_~wu'" by that date. TIlis letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft envi.v.~_._1 documents, pursuant to the California En.~.._.__._1 Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the envi. v._..v..tal review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to !lIe ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. . Sincerely, . . fr-~'~4 v.. . ~". . . Terry Roberts Director) State Cleatinghouse '~'-,. . 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramenlo, California 95812-3044 (916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2005031017 Project Title Temecula Regional Hospital Lead Agency T emecula, City at Type SIR Supplemental EIR Description The proposed project Includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9), Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and a Conditional Use Permit. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of bulldin9s 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 Hospffal Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDQ-9 allows a height 01 up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for the hospital bed towers. 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 cenler on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. Lead Agency Contact Name Emery J. Papp Agency City ofT emecula Phone (951) 694-6400 emall Address 43200 Business Pari< Drive City T emecula Fax State CA Zfp 92590 Project Location County Riverside City T emecula Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township North of Hwy. 79 South I De Portola Road I Margarita Road 92()..100-o01 through 13 Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Hwy. 79S, Interstate 15 Airports Railways WafelWays Temecula Creek Schools Land Use Current Zoning: Professiona' Office and Planned Development Overlay (POQ-8) General Plan Use: Professional Office Project Issues Noise; Traffic/Circulation; Water Supply; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Department of Parl<s and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency Services; California Highway Patrol; Caftrans, District 8; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission; Statewide Health Planning ~ t. i' i' i i i 1: Date Received 11/0212007 Start of Review 11/02/2007 End of Review 12/0312007 Note: Blanks In data fields resull from insufficient Information provided by lead agency. j; . I;: i~: i 8 WARREN D. WILLIAMS (it.:nclal Mallflgcr~Chicr Engineer 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 9250 I 951.955.\200 FAX 951.788.9965 www.f1oodcontrol.co.rivcrsidc.ca.lIs \~\~~~U ~"1:ID By ~inflgljepaltment .."" RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 20, 2007 Mr. Emery J, Papp, Senior Planner City ofTemecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Papp: Re: Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Temecuta Regional Hospital Project This letter is written in response to the Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 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 west of Margarita Road, within the city of Temecula, Riverside County. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has no comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Completion. 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 Jason Swenson at 951.955.8082 or me at 951.955.1233. Very truly yours, 0~sJ~q/ TERESA TUNG . ( Senior Civil Engineer c: TLMA Attn: David Mares JDS:mcv P8\116944 ATTACHMENT NO.10 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED G:\Planning\2007\PA07..Q198 Temecuta Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Pfanning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 37 WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Mi\nagcr~Chicf Ellginecr 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE. CA 92501 951.955.1200 fAX 951.788.9965 www.floodcontrol.co.riversidc.ca.lls \~~~~U \'i/I~ln By_. _., Pl~e!lt RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 20, 2007 Mr. Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner City ofTemecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Papp: Re: Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project This letter is written in response to the Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 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 west of Margarita Road, within (he city of Temecula, Riverside County. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has no comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Completion. Please forward any subsequent environmental docwnents regarding the project to my attention at this office, Any further questions concerning this letter may be referred to Jason Swenson at 95\.955.8082 or me at 951955.1233. Very truly yours, 0MkN~~ TERESA TUNG / Senior Civil Engineer L e: TLMA Attn: David Mares JDS:mcv P 8\ 116944 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GoVERNOR'S OFFICE a/PLANNING AND REsEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT ~'i.QfPl:Yi.t/41 ....~"t. f*~~ 'f..,-'" .9 " ~.... ~fEl1'CAL\\'O ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR CYN'rnlA BRYANT DIREC.1'OR December 4, 2007 o\l!~reli WlI~1 \n~ "e J 3 2D07 fO By_ PlatmlngfJ.""", .~..ant Emery 1. Papp City ofTemecula 43200 Business Park Drive Terneeula, CA 92590 Subject: Te=cula Regional Hospital SCH#: 200503J 0 l7 Dear Emery 1. Papp: The State Clearinghouse submitted tbe above named Supplemental EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on December 3, 2007, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. Tbis Jetter acknowledges that you bave complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft envi..._._,.al documents, pursuant to the California Envirorunental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445.Q6I3 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 Stste Clearinghouse number wben contacting this office. . Sincerely,. . . f,' .....:k.M., ~~ ~~~: -, I Terry Roberts Director, State CleaLinghouse 1400 lOth Street P.O. Box 304.4 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323.3018 www.opr,ca.gov SCH# Project TitIQ Lead Agency TYPQ DescrIption Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base 2005031017 Temecula RQglonal Hospital Temecula, City of SIR Supplemental EIR The proposed project indudes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9), Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map. and a Cond~ional Use Perm~. 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 DePor1ola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height of up to 115 feettor 30% of roof areas for the hospital bed towers. 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 on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots Into one (1) parcel. Lead Agency Contact Name Emery J. Papp Agency City ofT emecula Phone (951) 694-6400 emall Address 43200 8uslness Park Drtve CIty Temecula Project Location County Riverside City T emecula Region Cross Sfreets Parcel No. Township Fax State CA ZIp 92590 North of Hwy. 79 South I De Portola Road I Margartta Road 920-1 00-001 through 13 Range Base SecUon Proximity to: Highways Hwy. 79S, Interstate 15 Airports Railways WatefWays Temecula Creek Schools Land Use Current Zoning: Professional Office and Planned Development OVerlay (POQ...S) General Plan Use: Professional Office Project Issues Noise; Traffic/Circulation; Water Supply; Cumulative Effects I ~ i r , ;: f- , RevIewIng Resources Agency; Department of FiSh and Game, Region 6; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergancy Services; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, Distrtct 8; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Her~age Commission; Statewide Health Planning , r t- Date Received 11/0212007 Start of Review 11/0212007 End of Review 1210312007 Note: Blanks In data fields result from insuffident information provided by lead agency. , 1: [: f ~-'; e ," I:O\L~(C~I\:v~!~'D _r^ ,n~ ,,:-[ ,", ;,'1 -. ~ ' .~..._,,'" ~.~.'.' ~ ~ By.. Department of Toxic Substances Co~llgD<;fJctt';lho:nt Linda S. Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection Maureen F. Gorsen, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor December 4, 2007 Mr. Emery J. Papp City of Temecula, Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL (SCH#2005031 017) Dear Mr. Papp: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted (EIR) document for the above-mentioned project. As stated in your document: ''The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9), Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and a Conditional Use Permit. The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the 22 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 is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height of up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for the hospital bed towers. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Pennit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. On January 24,2006, the City ofTemecula certified a Project EIR for the project. Subsequent to certification, a legal challenge to the Project EIR was filed with Riverside County Superior Court. This Supplemental to certification, a legal challenge to the Project EIR was filed with Riverside County Superior Court. This Supplemental EIR was prepared to further analyze issues the court ruled were not adequately covered in the Project EIR. The issues identified by the court as needing further analysis include: construction noise impacts; siren noise impacts; clarification of project specific and cumulative projects traffic mitigation; and potential impacts to the site from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether plumes, under remediation, in proximity of the projectsiteo. @ Printed on RecyoIed Paper Mr. Emery J. Papp December 4, 2007 Page 2 DTSC sent you original EIR comments on August 9, 2007. DTSC has additional comrnents on the EIR report as follows: 1. 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 waste cleanup. The findings and sampling results from the subsequent report should be clearly summarized in the EIR. 2. Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prlor to the new development or any construction, and overseen by a regulatory agency. 3. 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 6.6) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.6). If so, the facility should obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. 4. If hazardous 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) 661-2171 to initiate pre application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility. 6. 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. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5461 or call Mr. AI Shami, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5472 or at "ashami@dtsc.ca.gov". Sincerely, ~J~ Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: See next page Mr. Emery J. Papp December 4, 2007 Page 3 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 # 1932 L , ATTACHMENT NO.11 DRAFT SEIR G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA. SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 38 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2005031017 Prepared for: City of T emecula January 2008 ! I ! \ i I TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2005031017 ~ l 1 1 ~ Prepared for: City of T emecula JallUary 2008 i " If 1 1 i '" " J '" .... "o-~ 9191 Towne Centre Drive &JiIe 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 wv.._.:.~_...._._ , l.oo_ 0aIdand PeIabna - ... rI ; ~ lj ~_.............. ~ [ SoYt ~,...~ - T..,..,. -- "",..,. r-ESA .~ .. , ,f "' l , , .. 1 j TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report , ~ ,S i PaQe Executive Summary S-1 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Project Background 1-1 1.2 Environmental Review 1-2 1.3 January 2006 Environmental Document 1-3 1.4 A.-", vc.vh to this SEIR 1-4 1.5 Organization of the Draft SEIR 1-4 1.6 Public Involvement and Review 1-5 2. Project Description 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives 2-1 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics 2-2 2.4 Project Characteristics 2-4 2.5 Discretionary Approvals 2-9 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.1-1 3.2 Noise 3.2-1 3.3 Traffic 3.3-1 4. Project Alternatives 4-1 4.1 Approach to Analysis ' 4-1 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed 4-1 4.3 Selection and Rationale for Selection of A1tematives 4-2 4.4 Former T emecula Education Center Alternative 4-3 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative 4-9 5. Acronyms. References, and List of Pre parers 5-1 5.1 Acronyms 5-1 5.2 References 5-3 5.3 List of Preparers 5-4 .. l ,j l' . , ~ 1 , '. '"f iJ , Ii " ,';: It ~ '; 'i. I!; f? i: b; Appendices A. Notice of Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report A-1 c. T emec:ula Regional Hospital Frnal Supplemental Emllronmentallmpact Report ESAI {)2(l7434 Ja"""'Y2008 Table of Contents PaQe Appendices (Continued) B. Responses to Notice of Preparation B-1 C. Soil Vapor Survey C-1 . Analytical Data and Chain-of-Custody Documentation . H&P Mobile Geochemistry Standard Operating Procedures for Soil Vapor Sample Collection . DTSC's Screening-Level Model for Groundwater Contamination Spreadsheets . Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline . User's Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Into Buildings . Interim Final- Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air D. Traffic Impact Analysis Update D-1 . Memo: Alternative 7 Build-Out Segment Operations . Intersection & Segment Manual Count Sheets and Historical Traffic Volumes on Highway 79 . Riverside County Roadway Classification Table . Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Existing . Cumulative Projects Data . Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day Wilhout Project . Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Project Phase I . Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project (Phases I & II) . Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day Wilh Entire Project and Cumulative Projects . City of Temecula Year 2025 Segment Volumes and Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Build-out (Year 2025 with Eastern By-Pass) . DIF Information . CIP Project Summary Sheets . TUMF Information . Assessment District Information . Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day Wilh Entire Project and Cumulative Projects (Mitigated - With Implementation of CIP projects & No Eastem By-Pass) E. Noise Impact Analysis Update F. Scoping Session Speaker Slips G. Response to Comments H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program E-1 F-1 G-1 H-1 List of Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-2 Project Vicinity Map 2-3 Proposed Site Plan 3.1-1 Reported Groundwater Gradient 2-3 2-5 2-6 3.1-3 T emecula Regional Hospital FINllI SoppIemental Envimnmentallmpact Report ii ESAI D207434 Janu..,. 2008 Table of Contents ., , i , -! Paoe , List of Figures (Continued) '1 3.1-3 Groundwater Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3.1-7 J 3.2-1 Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise Levels 3.2-2 3.2-2 Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations 3.2-2 fl 3.2-3 Site Plan 3.2-8 3.2-4 Noise Measurement Locations 3.2-10 J 3.3-1 Existing Conditions Diagram 3.3-2 3.3-2 Existing Traffic Volumes AMIPM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-5 ., 3.3-3 Opening Year without Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours j and ADT 3.3-13 3.3-4 Project Traffic Distribution AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-14 'I 3.3-5 Proposed Project Phase I Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-15 , 3.3-6 Opening Year with Project Phase I Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours ..j and ADT 3.3-16 3.3-7 Proposed Project Phase II Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-17 :1 3.3-8 Proposed Entire Project (Phase I + Phase II) Traffic Volumes AM/PM j Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-18 3.3-9 Opening Year with Entire Project Traffic Volumes AMIPM Peak Hours j and ADT 3.3-19 3.3-10 Cumulative Projects Locations 3.3-25 3.3-11 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-26 3.3-12 Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Traffic 1'f Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-27 (r. bj 3.3-13 Build-out (Year 2025) with Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-37 , 3.3-14 TUMF Facilities 3.3-41 3.3-15 Riverside County Assessment Districts 3.3-43 ,~ 4-1 Alternative Site 4-4 ~~ List of Tables S-1 "1' 3.1-1 .. 3.1-2 3.1-3 , 3.1-4 j 3.1-5 3.2-1 '~ 3.2-2 t 3.2-3 .. 3.2-4 3.2-5 J 3.2-6 3.2-7 3.2-8 l' 3.2-9 3.2-10 J 3.2-11 ~t ~ Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Chevron Service Station #204029 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Shell Service Station Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Area Service Station #5695 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Project Site Soil Vapor Sample Analytical Results Summary of Siren Noise Measurements City ofTemecula Noise Standards Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements Summary of Existing Traffic Noise Levels Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year, Project Phase I Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Entire Project, Phases I and II Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year + Cumulative Projects Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Buildout Estimated Ambulance Operations Estimated CNEL due to Ambulance Operations T<<n6OJla Regional Hospital Final Supplemental EnvIronmental Impact Report iii ..~ S-14 3.1-4 3.1-8 3.1-10 3.1-11 3.1-16 3.2-3 3.2-6 3.2-9 3.2-11 3.2-12 3.2-14 3.2-14 3.2-15 3.2-15 3.2-16 3.2-16 ESA/D201434 Jaooaoy 2008 Table of Contents List of Tables (Continued) 3.2-12 3.2-13 3.3-1 3.3-2 3.3-3 3.3-4 3.3-5 3.3-6 3.3-7 3.3-8 3.3-9 3.3-10 3.3-11 3.3-12 3.3-13 3.3-14 3.3-15 3.3-16 3.3-17 4-1 4-2 Typical Construction Noise Levels Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment Existing Segment Volumes LOS Definitions Volume CapacitylLevel of Service for Riverside County Roadway Existing Intersection Operating Conditions Existing Street Segment Operations Projects Trip Generation - Total Trips Cumulative Projects List Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Project Opening Day Intersection Operations Project Opening Day Segment Operations Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Intersection Operations Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Segment Operations Build-Out (Year 2025) Intersection Operations Build-Out (Year 2025) Intersection Operations Cumulative Traffic Improvement Mitigation Measure Summary Existing + Project + Cumulative intersection Operations With the Implementation of Mitigation Measures Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Segment Operations - With Mitigation Alternative 7 Build-out Segment Operations Comparison of Impacts to Alternatives Relative to Impacts of the Project Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental.:. ". , ,. ,_ ltallmpact Report iv Paae 3.2-17 3.2-18 3.3-4 3.3-7 3.3-8 3.3-9 3.3-10 3.3-11 3.3-20 3.3-22 3.3-28 3.3-29 3.3-30 3.3-31 3.3-36 3.3-37 3.3-46 3.3-52 3.3-53 4-8 4-10 ESA J 0207434 '-''''Y 2008 Final Supplemenlallmpacl Report FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ] This document constitutes the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Impact Report, which includes the following items: I. Draft Supplemental Impact Report; 2. Comments Received and Responses to Comments; 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 4. Appendices to the Final Supplemental Impact Report The entire document is available to the public at the City of Temecula Planning Department. 1 j " ... .. ~ ~ ~ 11 J ., ,; 1 T emecula Region3l Hospital FiflaI S~meotal Environmental tmpact Report eSA/D207434 ,.....,.2006 \ , , \ \ \ 1 ~ l j EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 L A Final EnvironmentaJlmpact Report (EIR) was previously prepared for this project and certified by the City of Temecula (City). The project was approved by the City in January 2006. A legal challenge to the project on the ground that the EIR was inadequate in several respects was filed by two groups and resulted in a ruling that rejected many of the challenges, but found that the EIR did not adequately address the following areas: '1 . Construction noise impacts; . Siren noise impacts; . Mitigation measures for traffic impacts; and j . Potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site and generate unhealthful gas vapors. The court directed the City to vacate the project approvals and not to reconsider the project unless it first circulated, reviewed and considered a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that addressed noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potentiat impact of the plumes. This SEIR was prepared to address those issues. Other issues were adequately addressed in the prior EIR and will not be addressed in this SEIR. The prior EIR may be reviewed in the City's planning department and copies may be obtained from the City Clerk's office upon payment of the duplication cost. , " II , ~ '1 .:i '7 By necessity, this summary does not contain the extensive background and analysis found in the document, but rather is intended to provide a quick understanding of the proposed project's objectives, design features, impacts, proposed alternatives, and long-term implications. Therefore, the reader should review the entire document to fully understand the project and its environmental consequences. Project .J 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: ''t >l ~ . A General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The Professional Office General Plan tand use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged; ~. rt: to! :f (J: ~: T emecula Regional Hospital Anal Supplemental Erwironmentallmpact Report S-1 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 ..>i' hecutive Summary . A Zone Change application to change the zoning district appticable to the property from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 would allow a maximum building height of liS feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital; . A Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) to construct a 320-bed bospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses; . A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408, I 60-square-foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximatety 140,000 square feet, a 10,OOO-square- foot cancer center, and an 8,Ooo-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.3 I-acre site; and . A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. Project Location and Surroundings The project site is located in the City ofTemecula, Riverside County, Califomia 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 have since been 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 commerciat uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate IS is approximately two miles to the west. Project Design Features The proposed 566, l60-square-foot Temecula Regionat Hospital Facility would consist of: . An approximately 408,t60-square-foot, two-tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be six storiesll06 feet high, and the second five 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 four storiesl73 feet high and the second three storiesl60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers; . A 10,000-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building; . An 8,OOO-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 comer of the hospital. Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriousty ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will T emeaJIa Regiotlal Hospital FtnaI.:' ..... ' ill E II Impact Report &-2 ESA I 0207434 _2008 Executive Summary 1 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 bospital, 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 ". v"voed project; . Lighting wiD 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 tandscape area; and . Approximatety 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 will include the following four access points: , .J , j l ''1 .. ., ') ,.11 n l~ . Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location; . Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast comer 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; . Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west; and . Right-out access from Highway 79 South at the intersection of Dona Lynora on the west end of the site. 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 ofTemecula Fire Department. ~ n I! li [! a u Project Goals and Objectives The primary objectives of the proposed new development are as follows: B City Objectives u The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: r t, [ T<<neaJIaRegiana(HtIspital FinaI$upplemental':" .""".' ..allmpattReport 5-3 ESA I 0207434 _2008 Executive Summary . Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of T emecula; . Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; . Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; . Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; . Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in tenns 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; and . Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Applicant Objectives The objectives of Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), 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; and . Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospitat for medical procedures. Project Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases, some of which may occur simultaneously. Phase fA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a three-story, 60,OOO-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 IO months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six-stOl)' bed tower of approximately 122,755 square T emecuIa Regionlll Hospital FinalSUpplemeotalE. . . "".lmpadReport 54 ESA / 0207434 .-..., 2008 1 Executive Summary 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 five-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. li a Phase III will add a four-story 80,OOO-square-foot medical office building (medical office building #1) and the hospital connector. n Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 1 O,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. ~ Environmental Impacts Evaluated in this SEIR I l. The City of Temecula has prepared this SEIR to address noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes, in order to comply with the County of Riverside Superior Court's writ of mandate. In addition, the SEIR identifies mitigation measures required to avoid or substantially reduce identified significant impacts. A summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table 8-1 of this Executive Summary. [r .' .~ n The analysis contained in the SEIR uses the words "significant" and "less than significant" in the discussion of impacts. These terms specifically derme the degree of impact in relation to thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section of this SEIR. As required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), mitigation measures have been included in this SEIR 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 levet below significance. Such impacts are identified as "unavoidable significant impacts." rr u [' [ li n Lawsuits Challenging the January 2006 Approval of the Project u As noted above, the Court's rulings in the cballenge to the prior EIR found that the previous document did not adequately analyze noise impacts, did not adequately address mitigation for traffic impacts and did not address the pv,~u~;al impacts of the MTBE plumes in the underground water in the vicinity of the project site, which were generated by leaks from three gas stations in the vicinity. The Court further ordered the City to set aside its approvals of the project and to not reconsider the project unless it first addressed these issues in an SEIR This SEIR has been prepared to comply with that order and addresses noise impacts, traffic mitigation measures and tbe potential impacts of the MTBE plumes. n r L L Tllflleo.J\a RegiOnal Hospilal Final Supplemental Enviroomentallmpact Report S-5 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Although the Court's ruling required further consideration of mitigation measures for the traffic impacts identified in the prior EIR and did not fault the traffic analysis or identification of impacts, this SEIR contains an updated traffic study that all impacts are identified and ensure that all feasible mitigation measures are identified. If any significant adverse impacts remain after all feasible mitigation is required, the City could not approve the project unless it adopted a Statement of Overriding Concerns pursuant to CEQA 915093. Because the Court found no problem with the prior EIR other than the issues identified above, this SEIR does not address any impacts other than those the Court found should be addressed in an SEIR. Therefore, when reconsidering whether to approve the project, the City will rely on the sections of the prior EIR not invalidated by the Court as well as this SEIR. The prior EIR can be reviewed in the City Clerk's office and copies can be obtained from the Clerk's office upon payment of the cost of duplicating the report. The prior EIR found the following project impacts to be less than significant: I) aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality, 2) air quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quatity, and 4) land use and planning; found the following impacts to be less than significant after mitigation: I) aesthetics - light and glare; and found the following impacts to be significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation: 2) air quality - short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts. Further, because an alternative site not available at the time the prior EIR was prepared has now become available, this SEIR analyzes that additional alternative (Alternative 7). Potential Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant In response to the Court's decision, the following potential project impact has been analyzed and found to result in a less than significant impact: . MTBE Plume MTBE Contamination According to the Court's review and analysis, the EIR failed to analyze the MTBE plume allegedly migrating towards the project site. The court found that the previous EIR did not address the site's exposure to potential MTBE contamination despite evidence of contamination threateniug the project site and despite requests from the public and other agencies to do so. The Court also found that the City was required to analyze any and all significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people onto the project site. The Court did note that the City eventually responded to the comments to the prior EIR regarding the alleged contaminant ptume relying on, among other things, an analysis by an expert taken on by UHS. It was found by the Court, however, that the City's response was insufficient, as it was required to be considered in the'Draft EIR report itself. T emeaJta Regional Hospital FmalSlO'"""""". z.., .,.,,,....,,..3IlmpadReporf S-6 ESA f 0207434 J....., 2006 Executive Summary 1 jj SEIR Objective This SEIR analyzes the extent and concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including MTBE in soil vapor and ground water at key locations of the site and significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people onto the project site. The SEIR assesses the likelihood of a significant human bealth risk in association with VOCs and MTBE due to the upward migration of soil vapors containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons as well as the possibility of the MTBE plume migrating towards project site. , j 'Ii .1 SEIR Conclusion "I J As a result of further investigations and review of the ongoing groundwater assessment work being conducted by others in the site vicinity, MTBE-bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed project site along the southern boundary fronting Highway 79 South. However, based on the previous and current soil vapor sampling, it has been interpreted that there is a less than significant risk of related human health risk at the proposed project site because of the possible presence MTBE-bearing groundwater beneath the site. ".~ i. , ,-->> ~ Consequently, no detectable concentrations of the target analytes (VOCs or MTBE) were r~t'u.;~J in soil vapor beneath the proposed site buildings footprints. Under the current existing conditions there is a less than significant risk of exposure to MTBE in soil vapor and thus a less than significant risk of related significant human health risk from soil vapor migration into the proposed buildings. As such, it has been concluded that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux and a very low likelihood of related significant human health risk; therefore the risk would be less than significant. ~ [It ; > The likelihood of exposure to MTBE-bearing groundwater is increased during construction activities, such as excavation. Depending on site development plans, a qualified environmentat professional may be required during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons. It is also recommended that fmal construction plans are reviewed by an environmentat professional to assess the necessity of further involvement and oversight. To the extent the site is developed, a developer may be required to manage or incur costs associated with the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater beneath the site (e.g., if deep foundation or footings penetrate impacted soil or groundwater, or if dewatering is required). Section 3.1 and Table S-I below include mitigation measures to address the potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. r [ o u Unavoidable Significant Impacts I Upon reanalysis, the SEIR identifies the following impacts as significant and unavoidable: . Noise impacts associated with emergency vehicle sirens; . Noise impacts associated with project construction; . Direct project-related traffic impacts; and D n li [ T emecula Regional Ho6pItaIFinal Supplem8n1lll EnYironmentallmpad Report S-7 ESA I 0207434 Jaooa<y 2008 Executive Summary . Cumulative traffic impacts. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the Lead Agency determines these impacts are significant and the Lead Agency approves the project. As required by ~15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted by a lead agency where it is found that the benefits of a project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. Noise Impacts Siren Noise The Court's review found that the City's analysis of siren noise in the prior ErR was inadequate. The Court did not agree that noise impacts from emergency vehicles associated with the proposed project would be less than significant to nearby noise-sensitive receptors simply because these impacts would be sporadic in nature and short-lived in duration. The Court also did not find substantial evidence in the prior EIR to adequately explain why ambulance noise would be reduced to insignificant levels as a result of decreased distances traveled during emergency trips. SEIR Objectives In response to the Court's findings, this SEIR assesses in greater detail the noise levels and potential impacts associated with the sirens used by emergency vehicles transporting patients to the hospitaL Should it be found that operational noise level impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted where it is found that the benefits of the project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. SEIR Conclusion The SEIR concludes that ambulance siren noise added to traffic noise generated by the proposed project woutd be considered a significant impact. However, the City of Temecula does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not appty in emergency situations. The use of sirens is required by law under specific circumstances, and cannot be regulated or controlled by the City of Temecula or the hospital administrators. Ambulance routes are selected by the drivers based on traffic conditions and expediency, and cannot be regulated or controlled by the City ofTemecula or the hospital administrators. Thus, although the noise from ambutance sirens would be significant, no mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed project are significant and unavoidable. Construction Noise The Court's review found the City's analysis of construction noise in the prior EIR was inadequate. The Court found that the City failed to adequately explain how significant construction noise impacts woutd be rendered less than significant. T emecula Regional Hospital Anal Supplemental Envlronmentallmpad Report S-8 ESA I 0207..34 """""'2008 Executive Summary SEIR Objectives In accordance with the Court's decision, this SEIR provides a more detailed analysis to demonstrate how construction noise impacts would be rendered less than significant. Should it be found that construction noise level impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted where it is found that the benefits of the project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. 1 SEIR Conclusion The SElR concludes that noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City's ordinance limiting the hours of construction provides no mitigatiou of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise tevel of 65 dB by more than 3 dB. This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the project site. With implementation of mitigatioo measures, provided in Section 3.2 and Tabte S-I, the construction noise levels woutd be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed project site. " j 1 ~ 'l' , , i! Traffic Impacts "! The Court's review and analysis of the prior EIR found that the City had not required or had not shown that it had required all feasible mitigation for traffic impacts. The court indicated that requiring payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and City of Temecula fees, at least without more information concerning how and when the fees would be used to construct the improvements identified as necessary to mitigate project impacts, was inadequate. Accordingly, the Court did not validate the City's finding that it adopted all feasible mitigation on this ground. .i ;..~ SEIR Objectives The SEIR contains an updated traffic study, further analyzes and identifies all feasible mitigation and explains the reasons that additional mitigation is not feasible when that is the case. Specifically, this SEIR evaluates the changes in vehicular traffic attributable to the development of the proposed Temecula Regionat Hospital, based upon the traffic impact analysis completed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) dated October, 2007. This SEIR also documents existing traffic and circulation system conditions, identifies and differentiates between direct project-related traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts, and .__.yo"es mitigation measures to reduce potential direct project and cumulative impacts to insignificant levels, and identifies specific mitigation measure implementation requirements, funding source and party responsible for completion of individual mitigation measures. '" u I I L r I 'J r T emeaJla RegIonal Hospital Final SUpplarnenIal E "Impact Report 8-9 ESA/0207434 .......,.2008 Executive Summary SEIR Conclusion Based on the established significance criteria, specific significant impacts were calculated as detailed in Table S-I below. Two direct impacts were calculated since project traffic caused the LOS to decrease from an acceptable LOS D to LOS E. Cumutative impacts were calculated at locations that already operate at LOS E or F without project traffic or locations where unacceptable levels of service occur only with the addition of cumutative projects traffic. Please refer to Table S-I for further details of the project-related traffic impacts. Direct Impacts Specified regional circulation system mitigation measures (see Table S-I and Section 3.3) shall be complete prior to occupancy of any building in Phase 1A.. Encroachment pennits shall not be issued until the improvements are complete, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Site Access and On-Site Circulation In addition, the project proposes three access driveways, two on Highway 79 South and one on De Portola Road. The improvements listed in Table S-I shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City of Temecuta in order to mitigate impacts of the new access driveways, to existing facilities: Cumulative Impacts The project shall participate in the funding and implementation of regional circulation system improvements through payment of established City of Temecula DIF fees, participation in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) Program and continued participation in Assessment District (AD 159) financing. These fees are collected as part of funding mechanisms aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected development and population increases. The rcgionat circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase 1A. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed, as detennined by the Director of Public Works. Additional funding sources have been identified for several of the regional transportation facilities (see Table 3.3-15 in Section 3.3). All available mitigation measures required to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts are summarized in Table 3.3-15 of Section 3.3 and documented following the tabte. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be feasibly acquired. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. As discussed in Section 3.3, implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. T emecula Regional !-Iosp/taI AnalSupplementalE" .. . .-Imp:ilctReport S-tO ESA I 0207434 Janu<lfy 2008 Executive Summary Intersections , 1 The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed, as determined by the Director of Public Works. ] " f The following improvement has been completed since the traffic counts were assessed for this study and is not considered a measure to mitigate the impacts of this project: " . Highway 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road: The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Highway 79 South from two lanes to six lanes, between Interstate 15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the vicinity of the proposed project. Also, completion of the planned improvements through the federal, state and special legislative funding mechanisms as mitigation for the identified project impacts shall he concluded upon certification of occupancy for Phase IB, which consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. However, with the exception of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3, and 3.3-4, the obligation to complete these planned improvements will transfer from the previously stated funding mechanisms to the hospital, if in fact the improvements are not completed before an issuance of a certification of occupancy for Phase IA. Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 require coordination with Caltrans and are found to be infeasible because ultimately they are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the City ofTemecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. ~ ~ ~ d [j rf- ."'. .. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in Table S-I below and Section 3.3, are feasible due to the fact that upon comptetion of all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be acquired. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less-than-significant level, essentially "eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening" the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be included in the record of project approval. !'l lr ~ ~ ~ r> I. Lk Resulting Levels of Service following implementation of all available mitigation measures for all project area intersection and roadway segments are shown in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 respectively of Section 3.3. As seen in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 of Section 3.3, all of the ,. T emewla Region8l Hospital Fmal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-11 ESA I 0207,(34 January 2008 Executive Summary identified segments and intersections, with the exception of Highway 79 South /1-15 Northbound ramps (AM) and the Highway 79 South /Country Glenn Way (AM) intersection will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service, following completion of all feasibte mitigation measures, although the mitigation will in most cases substantially decrease the amount of delay that would otherwise be experienced. These cumulative traffic impacts are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts, until such time as the Eastern Bypass is constructed, which would provide substantial reliefto the regional circulation system. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has considered alternative locations for 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 pennit a reasoned cboice" (Section 15126.6[a]). The following alternatives are examined in the SEIR. Former Temecula Education Center Alternative (New Alternative No.7) The following project alternatives were examined in the original EIR: Alternative 1: No Project - No Build Alternative 2: No Project - Development Pursuant to Current General ptan Alternative 3: Alternative Site - Corona Famity Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. 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 tocated at another site (Guidelines Sectionl5126.6 (2).) Only the tocations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasibte, reasons for this conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. The fonner Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection ofDiaz Road and Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek could accommodate the proposed project tand uses and is now beiug evaluated as the 7th alternative to the proposed project. The project site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City of Temecula, immediately adjaceut to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. The fonner Temecula Education Center site was previously submitted to the City of T ernecula as an education complex, including T em8QJle RegIonal HospItal Final Supplemenlal Environmenlallmpact Report 8-12 ESA I 0207434 Jenuary 2008 1 j Executive Summary 1 , , J an education center, a research and development /conference center, a day care facility, retail facilities, apartment units and associated parking. The alternative site location is shown in Figure 4-1 in Section 4. The Temecula Education Center project has been withdrawn from further consideration by the City ofTemecula and is availahle for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the proposed project. J ] Access to the project site is via Diaz Road, via either Rancho California Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include Open Space to the north, Murrieta Creek and Open space to the east, business park /warehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. 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. '1 1 ~ This alternative site has the potential to resutt in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Noise impacts of this alternative could be less than the proposed project due to slightly shorter helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Traffic impacts would be slightly worse. 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 outside of using the actual site as currently proposed. j fl J ~ n Ll r't 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, remains identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. " '-"'1. , u f1 t': U I ~ u L f' , L T emecuIa Regional Hospital Final Supplemental~" 1.~"""",..Jllmpacl Report S-13 ESA I D207 434 """""2008 900Z};J8nU8r P€t>LOZO/\fS3 '8IQepIO^SUn pus lueoUIU6!S v~-s sJisp pUB SJno\( e\(l Ol pallW!I eQ HellS sa!ll^IPB UOllOf1J~SUOO pUB UO!luowaa . 'pasolO SJoop pUB SMOPU!M 41lM law aq ol 5! (V)SP OS!O pJepuBlS JOIJ9lUj SlU SOUlS sflulPUnq ^tIllOBj IBllds04 JOJ pSJjnbeJ 9q II!M uo!~el!lus^ Jeo!ue4oa~ :sloedw! lueomu6!S 94113lS6111w 01 JapJO uJ ufl!ssp S,108fOJd 84~ uI pSJaplSUOO aq pJn04S S9JnS8aW flutMOIIOj 9lU : ~.c:.t amSl8W UOI)a15IlIW .SION lJOd&~ l:ledwll81U&WUOJIo\U3 IBlu8welddns 18UI.:l l81tdtOH 18U016&~ 81n:HlW&1 'UOIPMSUOO 6uJ.lnp spedwl 8'3IOU .\JBJodW91 UlllnSQJ PlnOM loafOJd pssodOJd S\(l!O lUaWdolS^Sa : ~-t't ~oedwl .SION UOII~nJISUO:> 'loefOJd S\(l s9^oJdde pUB lueoYlU61S 9JB SP9jJ9 998\(1 99UIWJelap JiouaBs 811l!! S8UllSP!n€) V030 elBIS 9\(l JO [q]9Z ~S~ pUB f.:60S ~ UOly.lSS Jepun MSUOIlBJapISUOO 6UIP!J..lS^O}O luaWSlBlSM anSSllsnw JioueBv peal .~oedwlle~U8WUOJI^U3 ~U801j1U81S 8lQepl0^eUn 'lU80wuBIS UB41 SS9l 'lUBOI!IU6lS uB4l1se1 UOI)e61~IW J9UI )oadwl jO 18^" '(9'~OfO!W 'g 01l!1l;::>::> puo 55L pue '95L 'L6L '~5L '05L s~ed 'V::>Sl 'l; JOlde4oqns 'l;~::> O~) (SOI)~ou06e .(Joleln6... ole~dOJdde e41 ~q p9^OJdde pue suolle,nllOJ e,qeolldde lie \(IIM eoueudwoo un! UI P819ldwoo uaaq lie\( 91lS losfOJd 941 uJ peYlluapllIOS 6Ulule~UOO~OO^ JSlnO JO -3S1~ )iUB jO lU9w91eqe ~B\(l 6uIMO\(S BlnOGw9l JO Atl::> a41 o~ (SllnS8J lSal6uIJoIlUOW IJOS pUB '6Ulldw8S 'SlS$lIUBW elS8M p&JlnbQJ 118 '81dwBX9 JOJ) UOll91ueWnoop sPJ^OJd UBlIS lU80!lddB ~9rOJd 9lU 'SQInlONlS JO UOlllIOWSP 6ulJnp SUOllBln6QJ ajqeonddB 41IM eOUBpJOXIB UI Slenpl^IPUI peYJlIemb pUB paSUEIO!I ~lele~dOJddB ~q jO pesodSIP ~~edOJd pUB 'pelPue4 'pOMW'" oq lIe4' IIOS popedwl -::lOA J0410 JO -381t'l POUIIUOPI ~UV 'ellS '1llId'04 pe,odOJd e41 lOj pepnpuoo eq UBlIS WBJ50Jd BUlldwBs JocIB^ 1I0S pUB 'J~JBMpunOJ6 'uos pGIlBlep B 'loefOJd 941 JOJ l!WJad lU8WllOBOJOU8 )ius jO ~uenssJ 941 Ol JOlJd :t- ~ 't tun.R8W U01\8811lW 'J81nBlI 81SBM peSU8011 8 )iq JiJllIOBj IBsodslP peUlWJ9d 8 01 pelJodsUBJl eq 118\(S SIBJ,J8lBW 8SS41. 'SIB/JaIBw snOpJ8zell-Uou pUB snOp.!BZ8\( JO IBSodSIP pUB lJodSUBJI 941 BUllBln8eJ 51MBII8J9peJ pue 'slell 'IB:::lOI8IQaoUdde lIllM 80UepJOOoe U! 911s~Jjo jO pasocls!p eq 118118 SilOS PGlBUIWB\ueo IIV 'Ji~JIl:)B! lBsodslP MlJ09ds8J 9\(l Jiq p9JlnbeJ se ')i11ll0ej e,BlJdOJddB UBIB lesodslP 01 Jopd peJdWBS pUB 'altS~UO p9Ud>lOOlS 'P81BBaJ88S eq IIBlIs (p8J8lUnOOUS QJS SilOS snOJ8J1po JO P8UI9lS 9JallM "8'9) ')ius JI ellS IBlldsOll p8sodOJd 841 Je 9110S p8108Jje wn&IOJl8d :~.. ~ 't IUn...w uona8mw SISIJOISW snopJezeH pus SpJeZSH s..mseew UOI)e6mW 'S8f1J^1l0B UOJloru~suoo pUB uonBJBdeJd ellS 841 BUlJnp pSSeel8J 9q Plnoo SIBf.J91BW snop.!BZBlIlBlIllenU810d :z;. ~ 'C I~Bdwl 'S8111^!lOe UOllONISUOO pUB UOIlBJBd8Jd alJS lO9rOJd 5ulJnp p8JSIUnOOUe eq Pineo UOIlBulwBlueo paUIIU8p!Un JiISnOI^8Jd JOfpUB 6unSlX8lBlIll811UGIOd :~. ~ 'C )oedWI ownld 3Bl.W .ou"eplno V03:1 o,o'S jQ SZIGI UOllooS lUBOU!u6!S uelll 88e198 Ol punO:llnq p8JepjSUoo Sl:::lsdwj P8dwIIB~UeWUOJI^U3 lel~u8lod S3~nSV3W NOIJ....OI1tW ONV Sl.:>VdWI 'V1N3WNO~I^N3.:10 A~vwwns ~-S 31SV 1 A.rswwns 8^!.noex3 800z,(Jgnugr vtvlOZO'ltS3 "lqBPIO^BUn PUB IUBOlllU61S elqBp!OABUn pUB lUBOYlu6!S 'elqBPIO^Bun pUB lueoUlu6lS UOI~.61.IW Jev. ~o.dWI JO leAB, N8WWnS e^l~noeX3 y..--..... I"'~......~ -- ~ g~-S '6L ~S UO 8Ue] Wm-l46!J punoqls9M p8leO!pap 'V 0 :klVewoe6 uOllOaSJ9lUlleuOlllPP8 6UIMouoJ 94l epl^OJd 1184S loefOJd e41 ',{J19woeB 01 1e6ue40 pe181eJ Je410 pue 91!S lOarOJd 941 GU!NeS B91 41.1nO} 941 9Jepowwoooe al pel81dwoo ueeq ~peeJle SB4 leuBIS lUauoo 84l JO uoneo!l!po~ 'UO!108SJ8lUJ -1 paZllBu61S B ~IIUBJJnO 81 UOIP"SJOIU! 8141 . ~BM UBI~ AIlunoo 16L liS 94l}0 B91 (41.10U) l.n.mOJ 94l SI 6L. l::IS uo ~# ~eMe^!JO :6L 1:IS uo 1.# '<eMeAIJQ . :t-t.t ..n..ow UOll16111W 'BOO~ JIOA 94l UllU9We^OJdwl 94l}0 UOneldwoo JO} Sileo dlO 941 '9Wll Sl4l1B 'J9^8MOH '~IO 941}0 }IBlI9q UO SPBW S9Jnl!pU8dx8 JOj p8SJnqwl8J 8q Ol BlOO9W91 JO ~!O 9l1l 4l!M lU8W89J6B lueW9SJnqwleJ B lIsnqB1S9 pUB UOlleu!j)Jooo IBuBIS O\UBJl 91.11 lU9WejdwI puB pun} ll'BlIS lu'BO!ldde 941 ''V'l eSBl.\d U! 6ulPllnq ~ue JO} k)uBdnooo }O el90U!\le~ e }O 90uenSSI JO aWll 9l1J 18 eoetd ul eq 10U 6UIPUn} dlO IiUllU9 941 Pln04S 'JIWJ&d 6U!PUnq Bln08Wa1}0 ~10 ,.c;U8 JO aouenSSI 01 JOIJd S99J =110 81n09W91}0 ~IO p9JlnbeJ ~8d n84S lUBOlldd8 841 'MPBOl::l a6818 pj8yJ8Ung 011e&J1S lUOJ=I UMo1 PIO - UOllBUIPJOOO IBU61S OIJj"'l PBOli Bl~BflJBV;/41nOS 6L liS. PO!IIIUO dlO BlnOOW01 10 ~I!O peo~ e1!Je6Je~ pUB ~B~ed e6ue408d ue8M]8q 6L. }:IS ~ UOllBUIPJOOO 18u61S OWBJ1 : l.-t't 8JnS88W UOI~e6mw OlUBJ1 'sSIOU}O sd^J SILO uo paOBld lijU8W9Jjnbw UOl18BmW au 9Je W91.f1 'JueoUlu6,s aq PlnOM SUIiU!S 90uelnqwB WOJ} eSIOu 84l 4Bna4llB 'smu. 'suOIlBmls ,.C;OU96J9W8 U! ^jdde JOu op SpJBpU8JS 8SIaN '~BPll04 pUB ~Bpuns 'SJnol.! eWlU4fllU 84J BUlJnp 9SIOU UOllONlSUOO WOJJ SlueplSeJ ^qJB9U 108JOJd OJ ~IUO JUB^919J S! pUB ~BpJnJ8S pUB ~8P>l98M BUIJnp 8SIOU UonoruJSUOO }O UOllB6mw au S9PI^OJd 'UOllOOJlSUOO}O SJn04 941 'Bumwu 90UBUIPJO sfiJIO 841 'p8Jlnbe~ euoN :uol.e6I11W 'S9,mSBew UOlJB6mw peuOnUeW-8^oqB 4l!M 90UB!ldwoo WJ!:JUOO pUB SlUlBldwoo ldsooe 01 J01IUOW eSIOU 8 9J141lJM JU8uodOJd 108rOJd 841 _ 'sel1.l9doJd lenU8PlS9J 6UIPUnOJJns 8lU WOJ} GIQeollOBJd 58 JB} SB pelBOOI eq UB4S SW9Jl luewdlnb8 UO!JonJJSuoo ^SION . 'S,l9U!nw' paz!s ^lJedoJd 4llM pe>>u eq 1184S JU8wd!nb8 UOnllowep pUB UO!lOIlJlSUOO II'V . 'OpOO IBdlOlunv; II""OW01 jO .li1:J 041 ~q pOU!WJod S8Jnleew uOI~e8111W r........ - r""'''.'''''"1 ......_..~ r~~"-: ~"~.., ll!"t.'lI lJoda},i pldWIISJuewuaJl^U3 IBJuewelddns Iguy 181ldIOH1IJUOI6e"tigt~1 'ssaooe 108foJd 9111 SB 8N8S IIlM pUB ^I1UeJJnO lSlxa JOU seop 401W^ UOIJ08SJ8lUI SI41jO Bel 4~OU 041 6UIP!^OJd JOj olq!suodsOJ SIIOO[oJd 94J pUB ^BM9^!JP 109fOJd UIBW 911l SI UOIl08SJ8lUl SI41 90Ul8 lOBdwllOWIP 8 SI 8!41. - (,.c;BM9A!JO l08rOJd) ~IM UOI~ Allunoo I 6L ~BM46!H :t-t.t l08dwl '3 SOl Ol 0 SOl wOJ} S81BJOjJ819p lU9Wfl8S SI4J OYJBJl U 8SB4d 10efOJd }O UOlJlppB 94ll.f1]M SOUlS JOBdwl109J!P e SI SI41 - peol::l eljJB6Je~ pUB ,.c;BM>lJBd e6UBl/08d UOOMjoq 6L ~IM46IH 10 luowBeS : ~.t.t "'8dwl (,(IUO II es84d) SIOBdWII08JIC '8SIOU U8JlS 90uBlnqw8 ~lIeoy.!oeds 's.\BMpBOJ j8001 BUOl8 SI8^SI SS!OU eSB8JOUI PlnOM 109fOJd pesodOJd 841}0 lU9Wdol8^9a :Z"Z't ~oldWI SUOJIS 810140^ ,(OuoIlJOW3 ~:)8dwIIIIUeWUOJIAUa IRllue.Od r~'~' ~~ - ~ - ~;:',~.~ Ii'-"'.'.'..', ~ . 900l:,(Jenuer Vf:vLOl:O/VS3 'elqeploA8un pueluBOUlUBIS '91QeplOAeun pue ~UBOUlUBIS UOI~e6n1W J8ue ~:)edwllo ISAG, 9~'S leJ9P9.d pUB 818lS 'SO.d::> 'Se8j ::IVm1 'See) .d10 4'BnoJ4'l peJnoes SI BUjpun.d :eloN 'pefOJd 941 JOj 1!LW9d lU9Wlj080JOU9 I.UB }O 9::>UBnSS\ SAlIO elll 0\ JOl.id 8\8jdwoo eq \lBlIS e6u8llOJ9\U\ 8ln \B SdWBJ a41 01 saual ppa/llM 4014M (~99'S9~'O~~ 'ON lunooo'o' .~JOM oUqnd) ,a8ua4",a,ul 4l'10S 6L 91no~ 9181S I S~ 91'elSJelUI" P81111U9p9foJd dl::> Bln08W81jO 1.\1::> .dw~ punoq4l.l0N S~-1/8L lJS :rt.t ..n..aw uOlla811lW 'peJlnb9J 9q 111M SUOllBJ9PISUOO BUjPjJJ8AO jO lU8W91BlS 8 1.P14M JOj 91QBBIllwun pUB lUe:>IJIU6lS AI9I\jlBlnWno p9JepliUOO 9JB S\08dwl86uB4OJ91UI 941 'A1u!8l.Ieo 41lM pelu6mw eq 10UUe:> eBu84OJ81U[8411B pudWI e41 esne:>es '81no8we1 jO };Il~ 841 10U PU8 (SU8.11180) !bueB8 oUQnd ep!SlnO us Aq 108fOJd e41 jO IOJIUOO 411M pe18[OOSSB AluJB1.I&::lUn et.H jO esne:>eq '8lqlsBejUI peweep 5! uoue6mw 841 'eJOj8Je41 '~~OZ JBe}; e41 U! UOllOnJ1SUOO Uj eq 01 pelO8dxe pUB p8pUnj Allnj eJB S\U8W8AOJdwl e6UB40J81UI e41 46n041 U9A& 'J:)8fOJd leljds04 841 jO l.ou8dnooo 01 JOlJd 90Bjd U! eq 01 peSIUBJen6 eq 10uueo 9J0)8J841 pUB SUeJllBO 41lM UO!IBUjpJOOO 9JlnbsJ 'rt'C pUB t-t'C l8Jns,ew uone811IW '~~OZ U! pel:ledx8 SI UO!lOnJ1SUOO pUB spunj ~Z9 8S pUB spunj BUl40lBW IBJ8p8::1 PUB SlB1S 'SO::lO 'SSS) ::I~n1 'seej =110 46nOJ4'1 peJno8s SI6uIPUn::l :eloN 'loefOJd 841 JO) 1lLW8d IU9W40BOJOU9 AU8 jO 80U8nSS! S,J;:II::> e41 01 JOIJd S18ldwoo 8q n84S 86uBljOJelUI 94118 SdWBJ 84101 seuBI ppe ll!M 4014M (Z99'S9 ~ 'O~Z: 'ON lunQ:Y.)~ IDIJOM oUQnd) .e6u840J91Uj 41nos 6L elnOl::l arelS I g~ 81BlSJe1uI6 peU!lue1oafoJd dl::> BlnoeW91jO Al!::> sdWBl::l punoq41noS S~-1/6L l::lS :t"t't GJnSiew uoUe8111W 'Suppad slBnbepB ePI^OJd 01 pUB IillllOBj 4089 sse008 01 pepl^oJd eq IIB4S W81SAS };BMpeOJ IBWelUI818nbep8 uV 'BUPJJ8d Aq pepunOJJns 'ellS e\.ll jO JS1USO 941 U1 AI91BWlXOJddB P9l8001 9J8 sflUIPl!nq P9181GJ Jet.po pue IBllds04 8\.lJ. . 'eU81 punoQlno euo pua punoqul suo ep!AOJd 1184S ABM9A!JP ep[M IOOj.Ot S!LU. 'pe11Ql4OJd eq 1184'S 181ldso\.l S\.ll jO lno sUJnl-yel 'sssooe AIUO UI-VSI pU81no-.146!J I UI-l4flj.l peznBufijsun eplAOJd 111M p80~ 810lJOd eo uo €# A8M9^!J0 :pIO~ IIO~Od eo uo t# .(eM.8AIJO . '8U81 pUnDqlnO 8UO pUB punoqul suo ePI^OJd IIB45 A8MeA!Jp 9p~ lOOl-Ov S!41 'sseooe AIUO In<rl4fl!JIU! 14fi!J P8ZllBu6lsun epl^OJd II'"' pUB A1.IedOJd 9\.l~ JO A.iepunoq IS9M 94118 pe1BOOI eq !lUllS 6L l::lS UO 'l# A8MEMlJO :6.L ~S UO Z# ,(IMeAIJO . 'etlS pefoJd 81.U BUll!X~ UO!108JIP punoqljlnOS 941 U! 9uel wnN46lJ 146nOJ4~ peJB4s e pUB S9U81 UJm-ij91lBnp pUB '6L ~S uo 8eU81 wnJ-1I91 punOQ1SBe lena 0 89Jn189W UOI~88IlIW lJOd8~ }08dWII81UawuOJI^U3 I81UeW8lddns leUI::! 181ld,OH leuol6a~ IwoeUJal .dwelJ 8N S ~ -1/8L lJS :rt't 1..dwl .dwalJ 8S S~-1/8L lJS :t-t.t loadwl sUO/I"aSJ8IU/ alo8dwI 8AIlalnwno lOldwl181U8WUOJIAUa 181~ue~od AJ8UJwns IMnnOllX3 '1''',.....'''''' ft"'.....'.....'! 900~NBnuer M:vlOZOI 'V$3 .9Iqeplo^eun pue lUe:lU[uB!S .9IqBp!O^eun pUB lUBOlJ\u6IS '9IqBPI0^BUn pUB lUeOUlu61S UOIJ86Im'~ J8118 JoedWI JO 18^8' Alewwns S^I.nosx3 r'~".' H-S 16L 'tiS ell1 BUIPnlOUI '6L 'tiS BUOIB UOlleu!pJOOo leuBls all) a^OJdwj Il!M loefOJd S!4~ .S109rOJd J9410 JO All:l e41 wOJ! luawasmqwl9J le!lU910d ol109[qns 'VI 9se4d U! BUIPlfnq Aue JOj AouedMOo !O 91BOUI1JSO e jO souenSSI 91.11 Ol JO!Jd SlU9we^OJdwl 9111 9191dwoo 1184S lUBOUddV 941 'SJ9l110 Aq pel91dwDO IOU j[ '109fOJd 9111 JO VI 9SBlld UI BU1PIlnq Aue JOJ Aouednooo JO 91eOUI1..I90 e JO 90uenSSI S.AI!O 9111 01 JO!Jd P.I.,dwoo .q lIe4' .p.Ol:! .6elS PI.I)J.W18 OII..JIS IUOJ~ UMOl PIO - Uon.UlpJOO:J leu61S OIJj9Jl peal:! elue6Je~ 141nos 6L l:!S. P.II!lu. dl:J e!no.w.l jO AII:J peOl:! elue6Je~ f AM~d ~Me4P.l:!/6L l:!S "eM U.IO AJjuno:J f6L l:!S ~'.UOI"I~ .0 eplu.^....f6L l:!S ~Pl:! 41lWS 4elpapor f6L l:!S :L"t't 9Jn.e.W uOlle6111W 'SOOZ JOJ palnp9llos 91 UO!lOruISUOO PUB 'spun::l ~Z9 8S pue wwBOJd ::I~n~ aliI ul UO!1edlOII..lBd pUB ssa) ::lIQ llBnOJlll pSJn09S SI BUIPUn.:l :SION 'sp9fOJd J9410 JO All0 9111 WOJj }U9WSSJnqwl9J lenU910d Ol109[qns 'VI 9selld Ul BUIPllnq AUB JOj Aouednooo !O 91BOU[lJ90 B !O 9OUenSS! 9111 O} JO!Jd SIUSW9^OJdWI 941 S191dwoo ne4S IUBOnddv .41 'SJ.410 Aq P.l.ldwoo IOU jl 'jO.[OJd .4IjO ....1 .,e4d ul 6uIPllnq Aue JOj Aouednooo jO 91BOUl1J90 18 jO 90uBnssl S,AIIO 94J 01 JOIJd PSlOrulSUOO Bq lIe4s ABM>f.lBd eBue40sd Ie 6L 'ijS uo Buel WnNll6IJ punoqlSBS puooss e ppe UlM 40lllM '~s9uel wn~-14BI'ij lena - ABM>fJed B6uB409d 01 41nos 6L Slno'tf SIBlS~ P91111U9 dlO eln09W91!0 AlIO AMltd e6ue4o.d 16L l:!S jO UO\lO.SJ.IUI :9-t't .In...w uOlle611lW 'SOOZ U! JnOOO 01 P9109dX9 51 uOlloru15UOO pUB 'W9J6OJd ~~nl.41 UI UO!ledlOl~.d pue 'aaj ~IO 46nOJ41 poJnoa, 'I 6ulPun~ :aloN 'SjOa[OJd Ja410 JO All:J 941 WOJ! IU9weSJnqwl9J IBIlU910d 01109fqns ''VI 9SB4d uI 6u!p1!nq Aue JOj AoUiBdnooo JO aleOUI1J90 e jO aouBnSSI 941 oJ JOIJd SlU9W9^OJdwl 941 9191dwQO !lBllS lUBOllddV 941 'SJ9410 Aq PSl91dWQO IOU JI '109rOJd 941!0 VI 9se4d UI6ulPl!nq Aue JO! Aouednooo !O 91eOYI1J90 B !O 90usnssI SAIO 941 01 JO!Jd P&lOn.qSUOO aq IlS4S 199J1S zed Sl 46nOJ416L ~S uo UOIl09JIP 40S9 UI Buel 46nOJ41 41JnO! e ppe 11IM 401lfM. '.fiB~ed e6uS409d 01 S ~ 91BlSJ91U\ - 6UlU9PIM 41nos 6L a100l:l~ pallnUS dlO Bln::J9W9~!O Al!O IS zed ell 6L l:!S :S-t't 9Jn.,.W uOlle6111W 'p9Jlnb9J 9q 11IM SU0!1BJ9PISUOO 6UIPIJJ9^O!0 lueW91BlS B 4:l14M JO! 91qsBlllwun pUB lUBO!JIU6!s AISAIISlnwno p9.JepISUOO aJe SIOedw! S6U84OJalul9lU 'A1U!8J,l90 411M p9186mw 9q 10UUeo 96u84OJ91UI94' IB lOedWl941 ssne098 '8InOBWBJ.jO ~IO 941 ~ou pUB (sU8Jlleo) Aoue6e o!lqnd 9plSlno us.<q lOefOJd 841!0 lOJIUOO 41!M pe~BIOOSS8 AtU!81J90Un 941!0 9sneoeq '9IqISB9JUI p&W99p sl U0!18611!W 941 '9J0!eJ941 '~~OZ JB9A 9111 u! uonon.qSUOO U! 9q 01 p9108dxs pue pspunj Alln! 9Je SlUSW9^OJdw! e6UB4OJ91U[ 9ll' 46n041 U9^9 '109rOJd IBllds04 a41 JO Aouednooo 01 JOfJd 90Brd uI aq 01 paalUSJen6 eq 10uueo 9JO!9J941 pUB SUBJIIBO 41!M UO!leUIPJOOO 9J!nbElJ 'rt't pUB t-t't S8JnS88W UOIJ86mW '~~OZ U! P9109dx9 51 UOIlOn.qSUOO pUS 'spunJ ~Z:9 8S pUB spun! 6Ul401ew l8JnS88W UOIJe61JIW r-' ~'''''''l i"f""""""':1lJ r.-. ~~ ~..~U .,~ lJodBe: pedWIIBIU&WUOJ!^U3 IVlU&welddns leU!:! IVlldsoH 18UOj.!l&l:/81n::J&W&1 peOl:! elue6Je~ I AMltd ~Me4pal:!f 6L l:!S :ABM UBIElAJIUnOO f 6L ~S :S9UO!SSI~ SQ ep!US^'V f 6L ~S ~P~ 41lWS 4elpap.r f6L l:!S :L-t.t IOedwl AM~d e6ue40.d f6L l:!S :9"t't IOedwl IS zed 'lf6L l:!S :S-t't lo,dwl J~8dWI18JU8WUOJI^Ua 181JU8JOd '" '":<'} - ~,.t"'"::.\3 900~,(J.nu.1" M:".LO~0/'t'S3 'elqBPlO^Bun pUB 1UBOwuBIS 'elqBPIO^BUn pUB 1UBOlJIUBlS '81qeplO^eUn pUB lUeO!JJu6IS '8lqepl0^BUn pUB 1Ueo!J!u6!s '~lqepJO^eun PUg 1UeOUlUfI!s UOIIB81llW JIUBIOBdWllO 11'1' a~-s UOnelnOJp IBUOI69J 18UO!l!PPB OU 'semseew uOllet}IllW P6!!!lUapIIIB MO UOlleldwoo uDdn ~B4~ pel e4~ O~ enp elql$e81 9Je S8JnSlB8W UO[le6111W leuol~lPpe ON :e~oN lJOd8~ padWllllJU8WUOJY.U3 IlIJU8WlIIlddns leUI:! j8lJCIaoH reU0l6e~ 8ln:1ewe.L 6L ^BM46IH 6L ,(eM461H 01 peolj Blo}JOd 90 WOJI peo~ 8l!JS6J8r-,) :&-C'C 8Jn...W UOI~.8I11W 01 p80~ 810}JOd eo wOJJ peo~ 8l1.186JB~ :6~t't ~edWI . ~ ~o~ pUB LOO~ UOOMjlq pllnp&Lps sl UOIp"'lSUOO pUB '6UIPUnj P]J1S!O J918M eIUJoI!le~ OI.pUBlj pUB SUO[lnq!J1UOO 9q!J1 e6UB40ed 'WBJ6oJd ,{eMljBlH pUB SPue1 o!lqnd '(>j99JO 110M) a:to '5991 :110 4BnoJ41 palnoas $1 6u!pun:l '$U01~8J!P 1Il0q uI ,{eM>jJBd e6UBlp9d UO 9U8111BnOJ41 p.l!41elll pp8 111M loe!OJd St4.1 :910N 'spefOJd Je410 JO ,{110 941 WOJI luew8SJnqwl9J IBnU910d Ollo9fqns ''V] 8se4d uJ 6UlPl!nq ,(ue JOI Aouednooo JO 9~BOYI1J80 8 10 90UenSS! 811l 01 JOlJd S1UaW9^OJdw] e41 91eldwo:) 1184S lUBOUdd'f alU 'SJ81110,{Q P9181dwoo IOU II 'pefOJd 841 JO \fl eS84d Ul 6UlPI!nq ,{U8 JOJ ,{ouednooo 10 91BOlIIlJeO B jO 9ou8nssl S"<lIO e41 01 JOIJd peleldwoo eq 1194S '999'99~'O~<; 'ON lunQ:X)'V S')fJOM onqnd - ul19SB4d - slUeW9^OJdwl ,(B~ed e6ue409d~ p91ll1Ue ~ ~OZ-LOOZ 9JB9A I80SY JOJ dlO e[nOeW91 JO .\11:) 6L ~S 10 lunos ,{eM)f.lBd eBue40ed :9-&'t 8Jnl.8W UOI~.61~IW 'lOBdwl S!41 eleBmW OllB lllM J."t't ~8dwl JOJ p91SlI SaJnS89W UOl1861l1W 941 'pedWI S!41 9l86mw OSI8 11IM 9"coC pU8 S-coC S1-ORdWI JOJ P91SlI S9JnS89W UOne61l1W 941 'peJlnbEU eq JIlM SUOllBJ9PISUOO 6UIPtJ.I9^O JO luewe181S e 40!4M JOJ 81QeBIlIwun pue lUBOf:l.lu6IS AI9^lle[nwno p9J9P!SUOO eJe SlOedwl 86U84::>.19101 el.jl '~U[8lJeo 4l!M P91efllllW 9q IOUUBO 8BuB4::>.1elUI elllle lOedwl 9418sn8088 '8lnoew91 JO ~!~ 841 IOU pue (sue.ll[e:)) kluefle olfqnd 9PlSlno ue,{q loe[OJd 94l JO IOJ1UOO 4l!M pele!OOSSe ,{lUIBlJaOUn 941 JO esneoeq '9JQ!SeejUI pewgep sl UonB6mw e41 'QJoJeJ94.L '~~OZ JBe,{ 941 UI UOllOnJlSUOO U! 9q 01 pelO9dx9 pUB pePUflJ ,(UnJ &JB SlUeWe^oJdwl eflue4::>.191Ul 941 46n041 Ue^9 '109fOJd IBllds04 941 JO kluednooo Ol JOIJd JO eOBjd Ul 9q 01 pee}U9J8n6 eq 10UU80 EUOJ8J94l pUB SUeJ1IB:) 411M UOJ18UJpJOOO 9Jlnb8J 'v-€'€ pUB €~€'t SeJnS8e~ U01l861l1~ 'J8^9MOH '6L ~S JO luew68S SI41 uo MOij OW9Jl eMJdwl ,,(nBeJ6 11IM e6u840J91UI 941 01 SlUeWe^OJdwl 941. 'pedw! 8141 918BllIW OSle lJIM rC't pUB t-toc q:)8dWI JOJ palSn samseew uOJ~eBnlw e41. 'BOOZ JOj p9[npe401 I! uononJlsuoo pue 'seeJ .:l[a 4f1n0J41 peJn095 5! 6u!pun.:l :aloN 'UOlleJedo 1oerOJd 01 JOJ.ld 'A8M9^J.lP loefOJd Ulew 94118 18U61S OWBJl 6UllS!X9 e41.{j!pOW pUR SIUeWe^oJdwl ,(J19woe6 8u81 J,OnJ1SUOO ne4S pefOJd 941 'UOll!PPB UI 'suOJJ,09SJeIU! 9S9l.jl 46nOJ41 MOil OweJ19^OJdw[ 11IM ljO!4M 'SUOl108SJ81Ul peo~ 8IIJe6Jer-,) l.<wtd >jMe4pe~ 16l ~S pUB S9UO,SS!~ eo ep!U9^,v 16l ljS 'peo~ 41!WS 4e!pepar 18Jnsa8W UOI~B81~IW 6L ~S JO 41nos ,{BM>jJed e6UBlj09d :8'"t't 1:11dwI PBOll 18.,s PIIl/.llllnB pUB PBOll 11IJI8Jew uge~8q 6L ~IMij6IH :peo}J 8~IJ86J.W pUR .(BMlfJBd e8UR408d U88MJ8q 6L JtRMij81H .<8fo\)fJBd .8uB4:1ed pUB S ).-1 U.8MJ8Q 6.L l:JS ~ ~.IIO ""M 6L liS _jU&w8IS pedWIIBluewuOJlAU3 lel~u'~od AlBwwns eAllrlOSX3 1I00ZNBnuVr I1tvLOZOfVS3 .alqep!O^eun pUB lUBOIJIUB!S .alqepIO^BUn pUB lUeOU1UB!s UOlll61nw J8va J:)edWI ~O 18^8' AlBwwns e^lln~x3 6~-S .'VI ese4d UI 6uIPllnq Aue JO) kluednooo )0 elB:)lJll.IOO e penSSl se4 AJIO a4l Jeije Inun peUIWJed aq IOU 1184S 'VI aSe4d)0 eplSJno 6uIPllnq AUe)O Aouednooo '6uIPUnq 181ldS04 941)0 Aouednooo 01 JOlJd PBleldWOO eJB SlUeWe^OJdwl el.O e.mSU9 01 :~~~t't 8Jns.8'" uon.Omw .sJnJn) 841 uI Je) 001 9q Ol p91oedx8 sl U01191dWOO 9sneo9q 9wlJ Sl4l J'8 SISAleUB e^llBlnWno 94J U! p9J9PlSUOO lOU seM ssedA8 W9lSB3 94l J9^9M04 'OO!AJes )0 S19^91 91QBldoooe le 9l9J9do 01 pe~edX9 SUO!1OBSJ91UI pUB SlU9W8eS PEI10ejlB ~8rOJd lie l.lIIM J911eJ loedwl oYlB.ll 9^IlBlnwno IUBOlJlu6lS JO) aPI^OJd 11IM SsedA8 w81Se3 841)0 UOllBlueW91dwI .SlueW9^OJdwl welMS UOllBlnOJp IBUOlllPPB JO) ABM)O 1l.ll5!J IBUOll!ppe aJlnboe Ol AlmqB 8lU epnlO9Jd SUORlPUOO lueWdol9^ep pUB esn PUBI BUIISIX3 .luewl59s Sjl.l16UOjB ABM)O 146lJ 6Ullslxe e41 Ul4l1M pelBpowwoooe eq UB:I SlUeWe^OJdwl uOIIBln::up IBUOI6eJ IBUOlllPPB ou 'SeJns8ew UOne61l!W P9lJl1uepJ liB JJO UOneldwoo uodn IBlU ~e) 9l.l1 019np 91q1SB9) 9JB S9JOS89W U01IB6mW 18UOll!ppe ON :eloN '1IWJed luewl/OeOJou9 Bln09W9.lJO AltO AUe)O eouenSSI 01 JOlJd Se9) .;110 elnOeWa.l)O ..<110 paJlnb9J ABd /lel/S JUB:ludde e41 6L ABM461H)0 lUnos A~M){J8d )jMB4pel::l :O~..t't OJn..e... UOIJ8811lW '9Jmn) 941 uI JBJ 001 eq 01 paloedxe sl uOlleldwoo asne::>eq awn S!4l1B slMleue 9^nBlnWno 941 U! p9J9P!SUOO IOU S8M ssedA8 W91SB3 941 J9^9MOI.I '90IAJ9S JO SI9MI 9IQ81dSOO8 Ie 91BJsdo 01 pB~9dxa SUOn09SJ9IU! pUB sJu9w6es P910BJJB pBfOJd liB I.IllM )S!leJ lOBdWI OweJI 9^IIBlnWno IUBOlllu61S JO) 9P!^OJd IllM SSBdA8 W91SB3 9111 )0 UOlIBlUBW9ldwI .luaw6as Sll.l16UOlB SlUBWS^OJdwl welSAS U01IBlOOJP IBUOIIIPPB JO) ABM)O 1461J IBUOl1lPpe eJlnboe 01 Allllqe 941 apnp~ud SUOtllPUOO lueWdol9^9P pUB 9sn PUBI 6U!IS!X3 . A9M)0 Ill6!J 6U!IS!X9 941 Ul41!M PB)BpoWWQOoe aq ueo SIUSW9^OJdw! IIJnSI8W uOJ.16,.,W , f"".' .~"'1 lJoda~ pBdWIIB1lJawuOJ1^U3 IVIlJ8W8lddnS IBUt.:! 1B1~8OH Ivuol5a~ BI~WQl s ~ -I jO loeM 6L lJS : H"t't jOBdwl 6L AeM461H jO 41nos ABMljJBd >\MB4pelJ :O~"t't IOBdwl .oedWIII.U8WUOJI^U3 IIIIU8~Od ~""J.';~ - ~~1 t''' '1; \ \ , \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '1 f, .J CHAPTER 1 Introduction ] 1 1 .J This chapter describes the background of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital project, the purpose and legal authority for this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and the relationship to the previously certified project EIR. 1 , , ~ 1.1 Project Background " This SEIR has been prepared to augment the Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Original EIR - State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 20050310 17) certified on January 24, 2006 pursuant to a Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued by the Riverside County Superior Court (Case Nos. RIC 445394 and RIC 445411). Following certification of the original EIR by the City of Temecula, two lawsuits were filed seeking to set aside the certification of the EIR (RIC 445411 and RIC 445394). On April 6, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City ofTemecula set aside its approval of the project, including, without limitation, its certification of an EIR and approvals ofP A 04-0462, PA 04-0463, PA 04-0571, PA 05-0302 and all subsequent approvals and permits. '" 11 ~ I ~ ,. 11 The court concluded that the original EIR failed to adequatety address the construction noise impacts, siren noise impacts and mitigation measures for traffic impacts, and did not address potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site and generate unhealthful gas vapors. In addition, the court found that the City ofTemecula failed to make valid findings that the City had adopted all feasible mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As previously mentioned, several other areas of the original EIR, including aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, land use, air quality that were challenged by the petitioners were upheld by the superior court and do not require any additional analysis. 0:'1 "'" "~ j ~ r~ U I I This SEIR therefore evaluates the above outlined issues that the Court detennined were not adequately addressed in the original EIR. The SEIR is focused on the following environmental issues/factors: noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes. In addition to the court mandated EIR analysis, a new alternative site has recently become available for consideration and will be included in the SEIR. n The Project Description is contained in Chapter 2 of this SEIR and has not changed from that contained in the Draft EIR. Potential impacts to the following environmental issue areas have not changed and are therefore not evaluated in the SEIR: I) aesthetics, 2) air quality, and 3) land use n ,,~ T emecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmenlallmpact Report 1-1 ESA / 0207434 Jaooa<y 2008 1. Introduction and planning. All other potentia' environmental factors were eliminated from consideration in the original Draft EIR by the original Initial Study. 1.2 Environmental Review The City has prepared this SEIR in order to comply with the Court's writ of mandate, in light of the sections of the initial EIR that were found sufficient by the Court. The EIR has been revised pursuant to Public Resources code ~21168.9, which addresses the remedies that can be required by the court when it fmds an EIR, or a portion of an EIR, to be inadequate. Thus, this SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the order of the Court under ~21168.9 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). r I Section 2t 168.9 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: (a) If a court fmds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with this division, the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of the following: . A mandate that the determination, fmding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in whole or in part. . If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, pursuant to the determination, fmding, or decision, that could result in an adverse change or atteration to the physical environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. . A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. (h) Any order pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with this division and onty those specific project activities in noncompliance with this diviSion. The order shall be made by the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate specifying what action by the public agency is necessary to comply with this division. However, the order shall be limited to that portion of a determination, finding, or decision or the specific project activity or activities found to be in noncompliance only if a court finds that (I) the portion or specific project activity or activities are severable, (2) severance will not prejudice complete and full compliance with this division, and (3) the court has not found the remainder of the project to be in noncompliance with this division. The trial court shall retain jurisdiction over the public agency's proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public agency has complied with this division. I I L T emecula Reglonill Hospital FmaI SUpplemeotal ErMn:li1tnentaf Impact Report 1-2 ESA I 0207-434 January200ll '1 , ~ 1. Introduction 1 l .5 , (c) Nothing in this section authorizes a court to direct any public agency to exercise its discretion in any particular way. Except as expressly provided in this section, nothing in this Section is intended to limit the equitable powers of the court. 1.3 January 2006 Environmental Document Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report ; ; ., The Temecula Regional Hospital EIR assessed impacts related to: I) aesthetics, 2) air quality, 3) hydrology and groundwater, 4) tand use and planning 5) noise, and 6) transportation. In addition to these topical areas, the EIR evaluated the following six (6) alternatives to the proposed project I) No project-No Build, 2) No Project - Development to Current General Plan, 3) Alternative Site - Corona Family Properties, 4) Access from Dartolo Road, 5) Access from De Portolo Road and Dartolo Road, and 6) Construction of Hospital Only. Alternative 6 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. The original Draft EIR is available for review at the City of T emecula Planning Department. 1 J l The originat EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project would result in unavoidabte adverse significant impacts to: I) short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts, 2) noise impacts associated with emergency helicopter flights, and 3) cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. ~ ;;b oj The original EIR considered the following impacts to be tess than significant without mitigation: I) aesthetics - scenic highways and visual quality, 2) air quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, 4) land use and planning, and 5) noise - non-helicopter. The following impacts were considered potentially significant but could be mitigated to less than significant levels: I) aesthetics - light and glare, 2) noise - operational impacts, and 3) transportation - project impacts. The Initial Study detennined that the implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant or no impact to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/fire safety, mineral resources, population and housing, pubtic services, recreation and utilities and service systems. 1 l The City of Temecula circulated the original EIR (Temecula Regional Hospital EIR- SCH No. 2005031017) on September 28,2005. In January 2006, the City certified the EIR. Subsequently, the Court held that the noise analysis was inadequate; that the analysis of traffic mitigation measures was inadequate and that the EIR should have, but did not, address the potential impacts of the underground MTBE plumes in the groundwater in the vicinity of the site that were caused by leaking tanks at three c10sety located gas stations. The Court did not invalidate the original EIR's remaining analysis of potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. As such, this SEIR does not address the impacts and mitigation addressed in the original EIR that were not invalidated by the Court. In specific, these areas of the original EIR include the following: I i l l' r 1 TemoaJla Regional Hospital Anal Supplemental EnvIronmenlallrnpact Report 1-3 ESA I 0207434 Jonua<y 2008 1. Introduction . Proiect imnacts found to be less tban sil'nificant: I) aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality), 2) air quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrotogy and water quality, and 4) land use and planning. . Proiect imnacts found to be less than sil'uificant after mitil'atiou: I) aesthetics - light and glare. . Proiect imnacts found to be si..nilicant and unavoidable after all feasible mitil'ation: I) air quality - short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts. r I I 1.4 Approach to this SEIR CEQA requires that before a decision can be made to approve a project with potentially significant environmental effects, an EIR or, in this case, an SEIR must be prepared that fully describes the environmental effects of the project. The EIR or SEIR is a public information document for use by governmental agencies and the public to identify and evaluate potential environmentat consequences of a proposed project, to recommend mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts, and to examine feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the SEIR is reviewed and considered by the governing agency prior to the ultimate decision to approve, disapprove, or rnoditY the proposed project. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less-than- significant level, essentially "eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening" the expected impact. As with the underlying environmentat documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be included in the record of project approval. 1.5 Organization of the Draft SEIR This Draft SEIR is organized to allow the reader to quickly and logically review a summary of the analysis, review recommended mitigation measures, and identitY the residual environmental impacts after mitigation, if any. Those readers who wish to read the Draft SEIR in greater detail are directed to the main body of this document. The Draft SEIR begins with an Executive Summary, which describes the proposed project, its environmental effects, and alternatives to the project (including the No Project Alternative). The Executive Summary culminates with Table S-l, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This table lists each identified environmental impact, mitigation measures identified, and the level of significance following mitigation. The Executive Summary is then followed by this Introduction. Following the Executive Summary, the Project Description (Chapter 2) includes the project location, project proponent's objectives, a description of the proposed project, and an outline of the required approvals. T em90Jla Regional Hospital Final Supplemental .:.., n .._,_.;allmpad Report 1-4 ESA/D201434 JanuEWY 2008 1. Introduction 1 j Chapter 3 contains a focused discussion of environmental topics required by the Court as they relate to this project, including the setting (existing conditions), and the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed project. Although the Court found no fault with the analysis of alternatives already considered in the original EIR, the SEIR identifies a new alternative to the proposed project in Chapter 4 that was not available when the original EIR was prepared. The alternative also includes the No Project Alternative ("build" and "no build"), required by CEQA for all EIRs. I ] The report authors, agencies and persons contacted during the preparation of the Draft SEIR are listed in Chapter 5. The Appendices include the NOP, response to the NOP, as well as background and supporting documents and technical information for the impact analyses. 1 J 1.6 Public Involvement and Review 1 j A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on July 6, 2007 and requested those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project to describe that authority and to identify additional relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in this SEIR. NOP Comments were received form: 1) Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), 3) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 4) Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and 6) Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NOP and the responses to the NOP are attached to this SEIR as Appendices A and B, respectively. I In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on July 12,2007 at 6 p.m. at the Temecula City Hall. Comments were received from: 1) Wayne Hall, 2) A. Evan Harbottle, 3) Pauline Nelson, and 4) Kenneth Ray. ~ J '1 , ., 1 1 l ! , 1 r ; . Tern&aJIaRegIonaJHo8pItal final Supplemental EnvIroomeniallmpad: Report 1-5 ESA/0207434 January200B , , \ \ \ , I. I \ \ I \ \ ~ \ \ I " i , CHAPTER 2 Project Description ] ~ This chapter provides a description of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital (proposed project). This chapter also includes a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project site; entitlements; required discretionary actions; and the objectives of this project, as identified by the City and the applicant. J 2.1 Introduction ~ The applicant, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), proposes to develop a 320-bed hospital, two medical office buildings, a special cancer treatment facility, and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres ofland in the City of Temecula. Situated on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and wyy.w,imately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, the proposed project would be also be located near areas of existing commercial and low density residential development. As described in Chapter I, Introduction, of this SEIR, the proposed project was evaluated in the original EIR for the Temecuta Regional Hospital, certified January 24, 2006. This SEIR evaluates the issues outlined in Chapter 1 that the Superior Court determined was not adequately addressed in the original EIR. The SEIR is focused on the following environmental issues/factors: noise impacts (sirens and construction noise); traffic impact mitigation and the potential impact of the MTBE plumes in the underground water in the vicinity of the site that were caused by leaking tanks at three closely tocated gas stations. In addition, because an alternative site not available when the prior EIR was prepared is now available, the City determined that this SEIR should evaluate use of that site as an alternative in addition to the alternatives that have already been analyzed in the prior EIR. '1 . ~ d 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives "l , , ~ The primary objectives of the proposed new development are as follows: City Objectives I The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: :~ ~t it . Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; . Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; . Encourage future development of a regionat hospital and related services; 1 Ji ~ TemectJla ~I Hospital final Supplemenlal.c.. ,.~.....~.._.lrrlp<Id Report 2-1 ESA! 0207434 January 2008 2. project Description . Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; . Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and . Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Applicant Objectives The objectives ofUHS, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: . Provide high-quality health services to the residents ofTemecula and surrounding communities; . Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; . Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and . Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics Project Location The project site is tocated in the City ofTemecula, 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 2-1. Project Site Characteristics The project site consists of 35.31 acres oflargely 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 controt channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows and cottonwoods. 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 lefTl8Cl.da Regional HospftaI Anal s.. ~ ~. .... Environmentallmpad Report 2-2 ESA I 0207434 """"",,2008 . .. - .. - " .~ Ii ~. :1 ['1' ~ ___1"emecu\a City aoundatY - _ TemeCUla HosPital SUpplemental EIl\ .207434 figure 2-'\ Regional Location Map -------- SOURCE: ColJ{l.ty ot Riverside, 2003 2. ProjecI: DescripUon commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate IS is approximately 2 miles to the west. A regionat location map is provided in Figure 2-1; a project vicinity map is provided as .'igure 2-2. 2.4 Project Characteristics Project Description The proposed 566, I 60-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/I 06 feet high, and the second five 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 four stories/73 feet high and the second three stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers. . A 10,000-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building. . An 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be avaitable only to patients and on-site staff. Project c~...y~~ents are shown on Figure 2-3. 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 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will pennit up to six 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 hetiwy,c.o 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 t 2 month period, for no more than an average of six 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. I 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. r I A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the easteru edge of the hospitat, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transfonners, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. I California Code of Regulations, Title 2 J Section 3527> Airport and Heliport Definitions. T emeaJIa Regional Hospital Final Supplemental ErMromnenl.allmpad Report 2-4 ESA I 0207434 .l<lnuary 2008 0- .,,~ '" "C'l ~ .... .. :>- &...~ . ::J " (t:C)13 illiL. ::; j 'U ~ ., ~ '8 ~ 0.- d, 10 ~ :<: .. -a ~ ~ I, 1 ~ ~} :, w Ui ~ 5 <h z ~- o j:: ~ if I I 13 ~I I I ~z ~lil!!!U ~ ~ ~ nl; UI ~ I x a.. 4. a.. 0. 1- . - '!I" . , . ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ I I - ~ - -.. - - - ; I :!: .. lil: S! .. 0 <> "'. _ I - - " " ." ". - . ~niii~ !l i= ~;:; i i e.. . ~ ~ --- !I: 5 ti ! I! !I! ~I! ill. a! " il' i ; ~ ;!il~!;!! ! I'; ~ ,i!! I! 181 'm! f j!ll ~ "I !.I.P "' i . i I ... tI.~, ~ld,lnUl ! -"- .: ;; l II =11 ~h ... I / ~ II J~ / / .. '; ill II / I ~t ,L / I Do a.. / / / I / I / I I I / I: rt_="~I~I_ . E-} GI~ GIGI GI ".., c: "', '" t!N- "GIll. ~"'<D a:::J:=:: w~CJ) -IL'O )'! CIl " ., " 0 E a. .!! 0 Co ~ g. ll. lJJ ]j Q. o o :c .. " " .. E ~ <J) " :I: W o a: ::> o <J) 2_ Project Description 1 J '1 1 . Ajogging 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 wilt be pole-mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses. -I j Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape area. Construction J Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a three-story, 60,OOO-square-foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces tn serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. ~ J Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six-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. '1 , .I Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of the five-story bed tower of approximately t22,755 square feet. Phase III will add a four-story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, I O,OOO-square-foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. ,j Phase V will be the construction of the 8,OOO-square-foot fitness center and the jogging trail. m Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated occur concurrently and to last approximatety 12 months. As shown on Figure 2-3, the total parking provided will be 1,278 spaces, which exceeds the City's parking standards, which require 663 parking spaces for the t'.vt'v.ed project. The greatest exceedance is associated with parking spaces calculafed for the hospital portion of the project, for which the Development Code requires one space per three 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. I I ~ r'~ In summary, the proposed building heights and parking spaces that will be provided for the hospital facility are as follows: d: T emecula Regional HospiIaI Anal Supplemental [_ Jt I~ Report 2-7 ESA 1 0207434 J,.,.,.",2008 2. Project Desaiption . Hospital- one story/27 feet (644 parking spaces and 42 handicapped spaces hospital and bed towers); . Bed Tower I - six stories/106 feet; . Bed Tower 2 - five stories/83.5 feet; . MOB #1 - four stories/73 feet (280 parking spaces and 16 handicapped spaces); . MOB #2 - three stories/60 feet (233'parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces); . Cancer Center - one story/27 feet (55 parking spaces and 4 handicapped spaces), and . Fitness Center- one story/27 feet (66 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces). Parking Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will he provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will he reserved for handicapped parldng. The site will he fully compliant with the Americans with Disahilities 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. Access to the Site As shown on Figure 2-3, the project inctudes the following three access points: . Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location. . Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast comer 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 witt not be permitted. . Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west. . Right-in and right-out access from Highway 79 South at its intersection with Dona Lynora on the west end of the site. Primary project access will he from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will he unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. I Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed development of a regional hospital to serve the Temecula area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: . . The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property witt remain unchanged. T erT1eI;:Ula Regional HospItal Anal Supplemental EnvIronmen1811mpad Report 2-8 ESA I 0207434 .Januay 2008 , i I 2. Project Description 1 > . The Zone Change application requests that the zoning district applicable to the property be cbanged 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 I 15 feet for 30 percent 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. o The Devetopment 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,OOO-square-foot cancer center, and an 8,OOO-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.3I-acre site. o The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. 1 1 ~i j J , 2.5 Discretionary 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 this Draft SEIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the non-hospital facilities. The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals. Agency Action City of T emecuJa City Council . Approval of General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay shown in the General Plan, an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change the zOIling from Planned Development Overlay (POO) 8 and Professional OffICe to PDQ-g, and the incorporation of PDO-9 into the Temecula Municipal Code which will allow building height up to 115 feet for 30 percent of roof areas for hospitals . Approval of a Development Plan and Conditional Use Pannit 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 pennits . Re-certification of the EIR and certification of this SEIR . Hospital building and occupancy pennits l' ,. f 1 ~ , L . , . California Offtce of Statewide Health Planning and Development City of Temecula Fire Department . Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire suppression systems T emecula Regional Hospllal Final Sopplemenlal ~ .. . .allmpad Report 2-9 ESAI D201434 """"""2008 Agency City of Temecula pooce Department City of Temecula Public Works City of Temecula Departments and Divisions overseeing construction related development U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Oeparbnent of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation, Aerooautics Division Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Riverside County Fklod Control Riverside County Health Department U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Temea.daRegionalHospital FtnaI Suppiemental Envit'Dl'lm8fllallmpad: Report 2. project Description Action . Review of security plans and systems Approval of Mitigation Plan Approval of street improvement plans, sewer plans, grading plan, and water and drainage system plans Approval of Water Quality Management Pian . Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and sign plans and permits . Review and approval of encroachment permits . Review and approval of street trees . Approval of burrowing owl report/surveys . Approval of special use helipad (Heliport SUe Approval Pennil) . Review of helipad . Cultural report approval and pre-excavation agreement . Possible review and approval of stormwater permits Possible review and approval water service pennits . Possible review and approval of permits . Possible review and approval of permits Possible review and approval of pennits 2-10 ESA I 0207434 Januooy 2008 ,/.(\ ] ] 1 J CHAPTER 3 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures '1 ! > J This chapter includes analysis of environmental setting, impact and mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials, noise and traffic for the proposed project. The l"~l'v.ed project impacts on the environment are assessed, in compliance with Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines, including the following subsections: f.~ f d . Environmental Setting and Regulatory Environment; . Project Impacts; ~ U . Mitigation Measures; . Cumulative Impacts; and . Significance after Mitigation. '1 l 3.1 Hazards 3.1.1 Introduction .''! ..j The presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazards has the potential to affect residents, workers, and visitors within and adjacent to a project site. In this case, the court order in the litigation challenging the proposed project found that the original EIR failed to address the potential risk arising from plumes ofMTBE in groundwater caused by leaking underground storage tanks at three uearby service stations. The service statious are under an order to clean up the plumes and remediation is ongoing. The issues to be evaluated in this EIR are what risks to patients, staff and visitors to the proposed hospitat, if any, might occur if the MTBE plume were to migrate under the proposed hospital site. Because the groundwater will not be used for drinking or any other uses in the proposed hospital, the poteutial risk of adverse impacts on the patients, staff and visitors to the proposed buildings would arise from toxic vapors that might migrate upward if the MTBE plume migrated under the proposed hospital site. ., !: iJ 1i 11 I I Other than MTBE, the main volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of concern near the proposed project site are total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasotine (TPHg), benzene, tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA). TPHg is a broad term that describes any of a large family of several hundred chemical compounds that come ~ l4 !1 ~-i U TemewJa RegIonal Hospital FlnalSupplemenlal=. ~, . a1lmpadReport 3.1-1 ESA I 0207434 Jonu"Y 2008 ~~ 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials I I I from crude oil. Exposure to some TPHg compounds can cause various immediate and long-term health probtems. Like MTBE, TAME is volatile, flammable, and highly water soluble. ETBE is a gasoline additive that has become more commonly used as MTBE has been taken out of use. It performs the same task as MTBE, reducing air pollution by helping gasoline burn cleaner, but without as many environmental and health ramifications. However, ETBE still has its setbacks. It is highly flammable and can seep into water systems if it leaks into soil. TBA in the groundwater is typically considered a breakdown product ofMTBE. Laboratory tests have shown an increase in cancer and thyroid disease when TBA is mixed with drinking water. 3.1.2 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions Aboveground and Underground Storage Tanks The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the petroleum above-ground storage tank (AST) program. The program covers facilities that store petroteum in a single tank, or multiple tanks with an aggregate capacity in excess of 1,320 gallons, and requires that tank owners or operators file a storage statement, pay a facility fee, and prepare and implement a federal Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The SPCC Plan must include procedures, methods, and equipment in place at the facility to prevent discharges of petroleum from reaching navigable waters. The RWQCB also administers the UST program. State laws governing USTs specify requirements for permitting, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring, repairs, release reporting requirements, corrective actions, cleanup, and closure. The Riverside County Environmental Health Department enforces applicable regulations, which include permitting and inspection requirements. The Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB is the local enforcement agency for leaking underground storage tanks. For example, the San Diego RWQCB is currently overseeing the investigation and remediation ofleaking USTs that resulted in releases near the site. Setting There are three existing or former gasoline service stations within 1,000 feet of the project site with USTs that warrant investigation for soil or groundwater contamination. Due to teaks from these tanks, all have undergone regular groundwater monitoring since 200 I. The existing service station locations in relation to the project site are shown on Figure 3.1-1. Chevron Service Station #204029 is located approximately 200 feet southeast, Shell Service Station is located approximatety 840 feet east by southeast, and Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the project site.l J SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), September 2007. T emewla Regional Hospital FirIlII Supplemental EnlM:inmenlallmpact Report 3.1-2 ESA J D2tl7434 Ja"""Y 2000 % li' ~:= "i ~8 kilN ';.~l~ .~o& i~s &"'~ !~'Q;\ ~_~c:. ~~'i \\~\ e#. \\\& c-o\)~\.'l l~\\ "~.. , ~1 u. c .. %1 \ ~\ 01 ! ~ ~ l ~ .~ '\ \ j 1 .J ~l n u \1 ~ \ ~ ""': " '. \J ~'I';'"C '" ., ""~:.o 'S C") cti "'t- c<. ~C) \Ii tst CD ~U:~ ~ ~ ~ c -a ::> 0. 0 " - CIl <!) .. ~ --g ~ "C :x: g. !! ., E a:: t (!! \ \ ~ ~ \ i8 .. ..; o ~ ,;; \;; ~ ." :;; g ~ ~ o '" 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South Chevron Service Station #204029 is tocated approximately 200 feet southeast of the project site as shown on Figure 3.1-1. The station has six groundwater monitoring wells, and monitoring has been ongoing since at least August 2001. Monitoring and remediation of the Chevron site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. MTBE has been reported at all six wells at some point in the tast seven years. MTBE has been reported at a maximum concentration of 1,400 micrograms per liter (/1g/L) and TBA has been reported at a maximum concentration of 420I'g/L. On January 24, 2007, Hotguin, Fahan & Associates sampled groundwater at the Chevron site. Figure 3.1-1 summarizes the recently reported concentrations of concern (CoCos) and depth to groundwater for each well at the service station. MTBE was detected at tevels of 111'g/L and 4 I'g/L at two of the six wells, one 300 feet southeast from the project site and the other 255 feel. No other VOCs were detectable at this facility. Based on the project site's gradient and the direction of groundwater flows and the low levels ofMTBE detected, the likelihood that MTBE from this service station has migrated onto the project site is very low.2 This opinion, is corroborated by groundwater sampling conducted at the hospital site in 2006. MTBE was not detected in groundwater samples downgradiant from the Chevron release. A report prepared by Holguin, Fahan & Associates (October 2005), provided the following infonnation in connection with the groundwater sampling: . The report concluded that "MTBE concentrations are consistent with the historical levels and show a general overall concentration downward trend." TABLE 3.1-1 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY CHEVRON SERVICE STATION #204029 Wen Distance and Depth to TPHg MTBE TAME Direction from Goundwater Number Hospital Project (feet) (JJgJL) (~gJL) (~gIL) MW-l 300 II southeast 26.08 <50 11 <2.0 MW-2 360 ft southeast 23.93 <50 <2.0 <2.0 MW-3 200 II southeast 24.52 <50 <2.0 <2.0 MW4 320 ft southeast 25.56 <50 <2.0 <2.0 MW-5 255 ft southeast 26.80 <50 4 <2.0 MW-fJ 250 ft southeast 25.78 <50 <2.0 <2.0 NOTES: Samples coDected by Holguin, Fahan & Associates on January 24, 2007. Goundwaler samples analyzed via EPA Method 82608. Approximate distance and direction from project site. JJgit. = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasorll9. MTBE := Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alc0hoi. SOURCE: Holguin, Fahan & Associates, October 2005. 2 SCS Engineers, 2007. Tem&a.lla Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental impad: Report 3.1-4 ETBE TBA (I'9iL) (~g/I.) <2.0 <10 <2.0 <10 <2.0 <10 <2.0 <10 <2.0 <10 <2.0 <10 ESA f 0207434 J......,.2008 , , 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1 , 1 Based on a review of previous '~pv,;'" for the Chevron facility, the MTBE-bearing groundwater is interpreted to have migrated beyond the boundaries of this facility. Based on the reported gradient and the proposed hospital site's proximity to the release, it is possible that the MTBE-impacted groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site. However, MTBE was not currently detected in any current groundwater samptes collected from soil boring B9 (Figure 3.1-2) at the hospital site, downgradient from the release in January 2006. Samples were also collected in 2007 and are discussed below. I ) Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway The Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east by southeast of the project site as shown on Figure 3.1-1. In September 2001, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the facility to investigate possible impacts to soil and groundwater by on-site USTs. Monitoring and remediation of the Shell site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. M1BE was detected in soil and groundwater samples collected during the September 2001 assessment at the Shell site. Additional assessment activities in 2002, 2003, and 2004 have resulted in the installation of an additional 32 groundwater monitoring wells at downgradient locations and the completion of thirty-five cone penetration test (CPT) locations. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells have had reported concentrations ofMTBE, TBA, TAME, and ETBE. Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling has been conducted at the facility since 2001. Remedial action in the form of groundwater extraction was condncted between May 2002 and June 2003 using a vacuum truck, which extracted a reported 1.6 million gallons of groundwater containing dissotved-phase petroleum hydrocarbons from the facility. Between May 2003 and November 2004, three groundwater extraction wells and two groundwater injection wells were installed west of the facility as a groundwater remediation system to minimize contaminant migration, and to capture and treat petroleum hydrocarbons migrating in the groundwater from the facility. The groundwater remediation system was in use at the facility from July 2004 to August 2006. In August 2006, the groundwater remediation system was taken offline due to the reduction ofMTBE in the Shell Service Station's groundwater monitoring wells network. Evaluation of the possible "rebound" of the contaminants of concern in groundwater is on-going at the facility and reactivation of the remediation system in this area will resume should it be found that these contaminants of concern exceed regulatory limits. As of April 2007, there has been no reported rebound of contaminants of concern at the Shell Service Station. During the first quarter 2007 (January 2007) groundwater was reported to flow to the west and groundwater depth was reported to range between 25 and 28 feet below ground surface (bgs). The monitoring wells closest to the project site that screen what is reported as an upper groundwater zone3 are MW-22A, MW-23A, MW-24A, and MW-25A. Based on the reported groundwater gradient in the shallow groundwater regime (westerly) and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is potentially migrating onto hospital project at very low concentrations. However, MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from soil boring BIO (Figure 3.1-3) at the hospital project site, downgradient from this release in January 2006, which is the nearest on-site mouitoring well. 1 i , -I j ] ~ II ~ ? j 1 j 1 , , . l J J I ~ , j 3 Miller Brooks reported three groundwater regimes that were investigated: upper. intermediate. and deep. For the purposes of the fate and transport analysis, the analysis focused on the upper groundwater regime, due to its proximity to potential .........l'........ and proposed hospital site buildings. . , l " Temecula Reglonaf Hospital final Supplemental Environmenlallmpad Report 3.1-5 ESA' ozor"34 January 2008 , - - --~- z ~! ~ ~ ",- ~ .Ii ~ U :l! ~ l\l'" -~ ~ ~ oft ~ \oIIat9at\ta \\,Q I~ c o .... > Q) ..c U e ]; ~ LJt .,,~~ 11<;.2- 0.;\;00 Ut-[ ~i ,,- Ii 'S E ~m i!":l! "~~ a:O~ "'. ; ~ ~ .. f ! 3i o " d.g 6'l1 ~ i1g "'j J!]!i!.. i.-'.nh~ ii~!il~ll.;l !l'iJ: .o"&;j!:-8!! ..sH. :;;~~iS~ ~ g=" ~~!oli %.d "~'d-liJ<8 'iii ~u~-.~ ~~ a! . ~~,...;, . go ! 3w...~nJj!.g E1!istn!:.iI;111~ ~~jj~'ai~ _1!-"& till ~iU.r.t:i~i ..u~,.o!!.> ~" ,ex; tifIJ ~8~ z o ~ ~ >< w . ~N"'CI) ~~R~ g C"i><u iil . lD Q) a:...=a: m::::lO- as!!!JOO ~ ~I&.. ~; E 0 >- (p ._ as a. >c c. ~<( ~ 0..= aJ "0-- li c:J: m <U 1Il o - c: :x: c: 0 I .!!! ~"" ~ ~ <U g ::) 0 I E u,,:: !E- O) ~ a. E <U rn ..; " ~ ,; :;; . c C. c w <J) o <J) OJ ~ => o <J) t,~:;:<, -r, j;:.:,..~ --- ~ f.,.,-.-.,. .~ "......4 - - "- -' ~"_..... '4"'_...4 ........ ~ - ~'" ......n___.l .~"...._...."..IIIIIiI.IMIlIIIiIIIIII.,.,,,,,_.._,,,,......,, o 125 2!O 375 Approximate Graphk: Scale In Feet North I EXPLANAnON o Grcundwateraample location. " ""......_._nl..._by Deltl- Envlronment81 (ShtIIIJln 20(7)). _ HoSguln, Fahan, & Aa&ociato {ChlwrOn IJan 2007D. and Della Environmental (ARCO [Jan 2007}). . Groundwater-tampIe anal)'UlCl1or benzene loluene, ethylbenXene, total xylenes (BTEX), and MTBE In gener.1 t...........,.... wfth EPA Method 82606, R..utlI are reported In mlcrograms per Utar '(j,lgIL.), Groundwaleuamplaa collected by ses EngIneers In January 2005. SOURCE: SCS Engineers, 2005. Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR , 207434 Figure 3.1-3 Groundwater Sampling Locations with Analy1ical Results 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Table 3.1-2 summarizes tbe recently reported concentration oftbe target constituents, approximate distance and direction to tbe project site, and deptb to groundwater for each monitoring well in tbe immediate vicinity. The samples taken from MW-22A and MW-23A were collected on July 27, 2006, and tbe samples taken from MW-24A and MW-25A were collected on January 25, 2007 by Delta Environmental. Additional Assessment of the Shell Service Station In January and February 2005, Miller Brooks4 completed eleven CPT borings on the proposed hospital site. Forty groundwater samples were collected and reportedly analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene, etbylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, and otber fuel oxygenates. No concentrations ofTPHg, benzene, ethylbenzene, TBA, TAME, ETBE, or diisopropyl etber (DIPE) were reported above tbe laboratory reporting (or "detection") limits. Toluene was reported at concentrations ranging from 0.53 Ilg/L to 1.1 IlgIL. Total xylenes were reported at concentrations ranging from 1.1 Ilg/L to 2.22 Ilg/L. Fourteen of tbe 40 samples collected were reporteq to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limits and concentrations ranged from 1.11lg/L to 77 Ilg/L. The highest."'M;d concentration ofMTBE (77 IlgIL) was reported in location CPT-50, at a deptb of33 feet bgs, which is located along tbe north side Highway 79 South. r- I I TABLE 3.1-2 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY SHELL SERVICE STATION Wen Distance and Depth to TPHg MTBE TAME ETBE TBA Number Direction from Goundwater (pg/L) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) Hospital Projec:t (feet) MW-22A 140 ft southeast 22.72 <50 4.7 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-23A 130 n southeast 22.46 <50 7.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-24A 10ft southeast 24.00 <50 2.3 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-25A 90 ft southeast 24.56 <50 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 NOTES: Samples from MW-22A and MW-23A collected on July 27, 2006, and samples from MW-24A and MW-25A collected on January 25, 2007 by Delta Environmental. Samples reportedly not coHected for the last two sampfing events from MW-22A and MW-23A because wells were inaccessible. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 62606. Approximate distance and direction from project site. ~ = ...:_~............ per rlter. TPHg::: Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE ::: Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME::: tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE ::: ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA::: tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: Delta Environmental. 4 Summary of Additional Site Assessment Activities. Shell Service Station (Formerly Texaco Branded), 44620 Redhawk Parkway. Temecula. California, Case Number R9-2002-0340. Miller Brooks EnvirolUIlentaI2005. Teme<:ulaRegionalHospitaI Final Supplemental Erwironmantallmpact Report 3.1-8 ESA 1 [)2()7434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials '1 The above-referenced Shell property site assessment report, prepared by Miller Brooks (August 2005), concluded the following information in connection with the CPT sampling: . There does not appear to be the discrete water-bearing zones (upper [20 feet to 26 feet bgs], intermediate [30 feet to 75 feet bgs], and deeper [deeper than 75 feet bgs]) as previously observed in CPT profiling conducted on the Vait Ranch Shopping Center and Redhawk Parkway. . Pore pressure dissipation tests from these four CPTs (CPT-46, CPT -47, CPT -49, and CPT-53) indicated that the depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 8 to 18 feet bgs, however, no groundwater was encountered at these depths during groundwater sampling activities. In other words, the geology varies around the proposed hospital site. Based on work done by other consultants, the groundwater at the l"Vl'v..oo hospital site was reported to vary from 8 to 18 feet below grade. However, based on permanent groundwater monitoring wells located in the proposed hospital site vicinity and on the proposed hospital site itself, the depth to groundwater is ~l'l',v"imately 24 to 30 feet bgs. J 1 l J J 1 ~ '" I Based on the reported groundwater sample analytical data and gradient from this report, MlBE impacted groundwater has migrated onto the southern edge of the proposed project site. , J Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the proposed hospital site. Delta Environmental collected 28 soil samples in June 2000 during a dispenser upgrade at the Arco station. Monitoring and remediation of the Arco site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. The soil samptes were reported to contain concentrations ranges as follows: TPHg (1.1 mglkg to 1,300 mglkg), benzene (1.3 mglkg), toluene (0.012 mglkg to 20 rng/kg), ethylbenzene (0.014 mglkg to 47 mg/kg), total xylenes (0.029 mglkg to 105 mg/kg), and MTBE (0.011 mg/kg to 43 mg/kg). '"1 , l .J In January 200 I, Secor International Incorporated installed three monitoring wells (MWl, MW2, and MW3) at the proposed hospital site. Soil samples collected during the installation ofthe wells were reported to contain concentrations ofMlBE above the laboratory reporting limit. Groundwater samples collected from three wells all were reported to contain MTBE concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. 'I i ,j I In February 200 I, Secor advanced six CPT borings (CPT - t though CPT -6) at the Arco facility, soil and groundwater samples were collected and tested for TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE, ETBE, TAME, TBA, and DIPE. MlBE was reported to be above the laboratory reporting limit in soit samples collected from two of the six CPT locations, and was reported in groundwater samples collected from all CPT locations. TBA was also reported in one groundwater sampte collected from the CPT locations. I IT U Between April 200 I through February 2003, Secor completed thirteen additional CPT borings (CPT -7 though CPT -17, CPT -18, and CPT -19) and installed eleven groundwater monitoring n ti ... I'\' r: T emecula RegIonal Hospital Final Supplemental EnvIronmentallmpaet Report 3.1-9 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 u 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials wells (MW4 through MWI4). Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells MWI, MW2, MW3, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8, and MW9 have been reported to have concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit at some period since quarterly monitoring began at the proposed hospital site. In November 2002, a remediation system was installed which consisted of groundwater extraction pwnps. Groundwater collected from the remediation system was stored in Baker tanks though June 2003, and the groundwater was disposed of off-site. In June 2003, three groundwater injection wells (IW-I, IW-2, and IW-3) were installed along Oartola Road, which abuts the eastern edge of the proposed hospital site. Since the third quarter 2003, groundwater pwnped from the proposed hospital site remediation system has been treated and then reinjected into the subsurface using the three groundwater injection wells, which further minimizes contaminant migration to the proposed project site. As of the first quarter 2007, the Areo site has a monitoring well network consisting of thirteen groundwater monitoring wells. Three additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW -lOS-A, MW -I OS-B, and MW -100) were destroyed in December 2006 to accommodate construction on the property to the north. Groundwater monitoring has been on-going since February 2001, and MTBE has been detected at a maximum concentration of 1,900 micrograms per liter (flg/L). During the first quarter 2007 groundwater5 was reported to flow to the west- northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 25.83 and 27.83 feet bgs in the shallow aquifer zone. Based on the reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is likely to be migrating towards the proposed hospital site as a result of this release. However, MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from soil boring B 10 (Figure 3.1-3) at the site, downgradient from this release in January 2006, which is the nearest on-site monitoring well. Table 3.1-3 summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, . ul'1"u"imate distance and direction to the project site, and depth to groundwater for all wells in the immediate vicinity ofthe Arco site. Previous Hospital Project Site Investigative Activities Soil Vapor Survey In January 2006, a soil vapor survey was performed in order to assess the possible presence and concentration ofBTEX and MTBE in the subsurface soil vapor in the vicinity of the footprint of the ,nul'uoed bnildings at the proposed hospital site. Soil vapor samples were collected from seven locations within the footprint of the proposed site buildings (SVI through SV6, and SV8). Three additional sampling locations (SV7, SV9, and SVIO) were loeated in the southwest portion of the l',ul'uoed hospital site in an attempt to intercept the off-site MTBE groundwater plume that was thought to have been intruding onto the proposed hospital site. The samples collected from toeations SVI through SVIO reported no detectabte concentrations ofBTEX or MTBE above laboratory detection limits. The loeations of the soil vapor samples are shown in Figure 3.1-2. 5 Atlantic Richfield Company Quarterly Report First Quarter 2007, Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, CA, Secor tntemationall..__.y...ded, 2007. Temecula Regional HospltaI Anal SUpplemental EnYlmnmentallrTlp8CtReporl 3.1-10 ESA I 0207434 ..........2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials "! TABLE 3.1-3 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAl RESULTS SUMMARY ARCO SERVICE STATION #5695 1 Distance and Depth to Well Direction from Groundwater TPHg MTBE TAME ETBE TBA Number Hospital Site (feet) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pglL) (pgIL) (pgIL) MW-l 305 ft east 27.17 <50 16 <2.0 <2.0 25 MW-2 325 ft east 26.02 <50 1.6 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-3 330 ft east 26.38 280 1.9 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-4 340 ft east 26.13 <50 3.3 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-5 350 ft east 27.70 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-6 315 ft east 27.83 <50 2.2 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-7 370 ft east 27.32 <50 19 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-8 270 ft east 27.75 <50 O.75J <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-9 225 ft east 26.90 <50 6.3 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-l1 340 ft east 46.93 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-12 230 ft east 45.93 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-13 250 ft east 25.53 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-14 200 ft east 26.91 <0.32 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NOTES: Samples oolfected by Holguin, Fallan & Associates on January 24, 2007. Goundwater samples analyzed yja EPA Method 826OB. Approximate distance and direction from project site. IJQIL == micrograms per liter. TPHg == Total petroleum llydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE == Methyllertiary butyl ether. TAME == tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE == ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA == tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: SCS Engineers ] , '1 ,. -, -! j J ~ " J 1 Groundwater Sampling In July 2006, SCS Engineers bored ten groundwater sampling locations in the vicinity of the proposed hospital site, and in places most likely to intercept migrating MTBE contaminated building footprints (B I-B6, and B8), and the other three were drilled in the southwest comer of the proposed hospitat site (B7, B9, and BIO) with the goal of intercepting the possible MTBE groundwater plume from the nearby service stations (Figure 3.1-3). Groundwater samples were collected using a Hydropunch@ sampler and analyzed at an on-site state-accredited mobile taboratory. The samples were analyzed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) Method 8260B for BTEX and MTBE. MTBE was detected in groundwater at boring B5 at a concentration of 1.3 1Ig/L, and was the only boring to have a VOC at a detectable concentration. MTBE was detected in groundwater at boring B5 (see Table 3.1-4) at a concentration of 1.3 1Ig/L, and was the only boring to have a VOC at a detectable concentration. 1 J ~ J 1 l Temea.da Regional Hospital FIll8lSupplemental"'...._..,.._...alIInpltdReport 3.1-11 ESA I 0207434 J.......,,2008 3. Environmental Setting. Impacts. and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materlafs TABLE 3.1-4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY PROJECT SITE Sample Benzene Toluene Ethyl-8enzene Total Xylenes MTBE Number (~gIL) (jIgI\.) (jIgIL) (~gIL) (pgIL) Bl <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 1.3 B6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 Bl0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 r ! NOTES: Samples collected by Environmental Business Solutions in July. 2006. ~ = micrograms per Iiler <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated reporting 6mfl: NO = Not reported at concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene. toIu6ne. L..",~ ~"..~..e. And total xytenes. MTBE = Methylleftiary butyt ether. 8TEX and MTBE analyzed in general a'^^"......,,~ witt1 EPA Method 82608. SOURCE: SCS Engineers 3.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provides guidance for assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. Relative to hazards and hazardous materials, a project will nonnally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: . Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal ofbazardous materials; . Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materiats into the environment; . Emit hazardous emissions or handle bazardous or acutely bazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed scbool; . Be tocated on a site whicb is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; . For a project located within an airport land use plan or, wbere such a plan bas not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety bazard for peopte residing or working in tbe project area; . For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; T emecula Regional HospItal Final'::- .,~' _ III Envlronmeolallmpact Report 3.1-12 ESA I 0207434 .........2008 1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ... . ~ iJ . Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or . Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. ~ Impact Assessment and Methodology In July 2007, SCS Engineers assessed the proposed hospital site to evaluate certain environmental conditions in the shallow subsurface soil vapor. The objectives of the scope of services described in their report were to: 1 J ., . Assess the extent and concentration ofVOCs including MTBE in soil vapor in selected locations of the y.vyvoed hospital site. . Assess the likelihood of a (significant') hwnan health risk in association with detected VOCs and MTBE due to the upward migration of soil vapors containing elevated concentrations of petrolewn hydrocarbons.7 , SCS Engineers conducted a soil vapor survey at the proposed hospital site on July t 6 and 18,2007, to assess whether or not any VOCs, specifically MTBE, were present and, if so, in what concentrations. The soil vapor samples were collected from 14 locations (SG1 through SGI4) within the proposed hospital site boundaries (see Figure 3.1-2). Additional soil vapor samples were collected on August 2t and 24,2007. Sample locations SG12, SGI3 and SGt4 were located at in the southwest portion of the proposed hospital site in an attempt to intercept the off-site MTBE groundwater plume that may have migrated onto the propose hospital site. The locations ofthe soil vapor samples are shown on Figure 3.1-2. "Ji i'J J 1 ~ j The soil vapor samples were collected in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substance Control DTSC guidelines. Prior to collecting a soil vapor sample, a one-inch diameter hole was drilled at each sampling location. Then, a soil vapor probe was inserted and a soil well constructed. Soil samples were collected at depths of approximately 5 and 15 ft bgs at each sampling site. They were then analyzed by a technician from H&P Mobile Geochemistry in a state-accredited on-site mobile laboratory. Soit vapor drilling equipment was either cleaned or changed out between each soil vapor probe to minimize the likelihood of cross-contamination. Betow are the results of the SCS survey. No MTBE or any other analytes were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. Detection limits refer to a minimwn concentration of an analyte that can be measured above the instrument background noise. Reporting limits (quantitation limits) refer to a minimum concentration of an analyte that can be measured within specified timits of precision and accuracy. Thus, when quantitation limits are used as reporting timits, the laboratory concludes that the analyte is not present in a sufficient '1 '. j 1 ~ ~ . i .!. 6 The criterion used in this analysis is one in a million (1.0 E~6) excess lifetime cancer risk (ECR). A high likelihood of risk above this threshold is defined as "significant," For the purposes of this limited health risk assessment, a c.....................:alland use, consistent with the Site's current zoning. is assumed. 7 SCS Enginee", 2007. , 1 .. ~ T emecula Regionall-k15pital Flnal Supplemental E. _ ,_ Impact Report 3.1-13 ESAID207434 Januaoy 2008 " 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials r amount to be reliably quantified. Therefore, a compound could be present below the reporting limit and above the method detection limit; bowever, it can not be measured with an accuracy or precision. Hypothetical Health Risk Scenarios In the order to better understand the hypothetical risk of MTBE-bearing groundwater migrating from off-site sources onto the t'.ut'v,ed hospital site and under the proposed buildings, several scenarios were evaluated based on data collected from the groundwater monitoring well networks associated with the gas stations in the proposed hospitat site's vicinity. All scenarios were modeled using the nTSC Screening-Level Model for Groundwater Contamination, last modified January 21, 2005, which is based on the Johnson-Ettinger vapor intrusion model. The default values were used for most parameters to be conservative. The following assumptions were used to estimate health risk: . The MTBE concentrations in groundwater were conservatively assumed to occur uniformly across the proposed hospital site. . A residential adult exposure scenario was used in which the adult worker weighs 70 kilograms, and works at the proposed hospital site for 350 days a year per year for 30 years. Please note, the nTSC model incorporates a 24-hour exposure period and thus the realistic exposure period is overestimated by at least a factor of two.s . The calculations used in the health risk analysis use standard (DTSC defaults for soil type) physical parameters to describe soil conditions (37 percent total porosity and a dry bulk density of 1.66 grams per cubic centimeters)." . The nTSC default soil gas advection rate (flow rate) of5 liters per minute for every tOO square meters of floor area was used. The soil advection rate was estimated for the tower building (approximately 16,555 square meters) and the t'._t'~""d cancer center building (approximately 743 square meters) to be approximately 827 liters per minute (Urn) for the tower building and 37 Urn for the cancer center huilding. The flow of soil gas (advection) in the subsurface may be caused by gas-pressure gradients or, in certain cases, gas density gradients. Pressure-driven advection is produced when differences in soil-gas pressure fonn, causing soil gas to flow and carrying any vapors present with it. Air pressure gradients in the subsurface of natural systems may result from several phenomena. As diurnal or weather -related atmospheric pressure cycles occur at land surface, pressure waves are transmitted into the unsaturated zone and air may flow in response; a process known as barometric pumping. . Both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks were estimated. Of the VOCs reported in the groundwater, only MTBE is considered a potential carcinogen.1O 8 The DTSC document references the "residential exposure duration" on page 56 of the attached document. when they reference: EPA 1996, Soil &reening Guidance: User's Guide. EPA/540/R-961018. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. U.S. EP A 1996. Soil &reening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA/5401R.951128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 9 A discussion of each parameter and some of the likely inputs is provided in DTSCs "HERD ~ REP ~JE ~ Users ~ Guide.p<lf' Temeo.JlaRegionalHospltal Final Supplemental EllIIIronrnentallmpacl Report 3.1-14 ESA' 0207434 Ja"""'Y2008 "I '1 -1 J 3. Environmental Setting. Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ] . The calculations used depth to groundwater of 26 feet bgs across the proposed hospital site, which SCE believes is reasonable based on a review of groundwater data in the proposed hospital site's vicinity. II ~ Scenario 1 MTBE-bearing groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site from the southeast. There are four monitoring wells along the southern edge of the proposed hospital property that screen the shallow groundwater (MW-24A, MW26A, MW-27A, and MW-28A). Monitoring well MW-28A is located along the southern border of the proposed hospital site, at the ~",..",Jmate mid-point of the southern proposed hospital site boundary, and has had the highest reported concentration ofMTBE out of the four wells. The highest reported concentration ofMTBE in , this well has been 97 1lg!L in July 2006, which subsequently decreased to 55 1lg!L in April 2007. Using the maximum concentration reported in this well (97 1lg!L) and assuming a conservative residential use risk scenario (350 days a year for 30-year exposure scenario), the DTSC model indicated less than significant cancer risks of I.1E-07. These cancer risks are almost one order of magnitude below the typical risk threshold of IE-06 (one in a million). The risk of non -cancer bealth effects is also less then significant based on a Hazard Index of3.2E-04, well below the typical risk threshold of one. "I , ,.I "1 '1 ; i.J tl ,{ ~ Scenario 2 MTBE-bearing groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site from the east. Monitoring well MW-14 is upgradient from the hospital property, located approximately 470 feet east of the proposed cancer center in the eastern portion of the property along Dartolo Road. This is the closest well to the proposed hospital site associated with the Arco Service Station monitoring well network. In April 2007, the concentration ofMTBE in MW-14 was reported to be 1.3 1lg!L, which is the highest reported concentration since the installation of this well. Assuming the same conservative residential use risk scenario (350 days a year for 30-year exposure scenario) as Scenario 1, the DTSC model indicated less than significant cancer risks of I.4E-09. These cancer risks are almost two orders of magnitude below the less than significant risk threshotd of IE-06 (one in a million). The risk of non-cancer health effects is also less than significant based on a Hazard Index of 4.2E-06, well below the typical risk threshold of one. The Excel spreadsheets for the risk calculations associated with MTBE (obtained from the DTSC website) are presented in Appendix C ofthis SEIR. ri ~ !~ ~.jo ., .J '"f u ~ Findings and Recommendations No detectable concentrations (collected from SGI through SGI4) ofVOCs or MTBE were reported in soil vapor beneath the proposed hospital site building footprints (Table 3.1-5 and Fignre 3.1-2). Because none of the target analytes (VOCs or MTBE) were detected, SCS concluded that there is a less than significant risk of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soit vapor migration and flux, and a less than significant related human health risk. fl ~"" 10 EPA J 1 Groundwater depth chosen based on historical data that was representative and conservative for the 1'" ~t'-' 'J . IT f ~ ~ T emecula RegIonal HospiIaI Final Supplernental E1Mronmentallmpad: Report 3.1-15 ESA I 0207434 Jaooa<y 2008 3. Environmental SetmQ, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials TABLE 3.1-5 2007 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS Sample Number Sample Depth Benzene Toluene Ethyl-8enzene Total Xylenes MTBE other VOCs (feet below grade) u.gIL} (PUlL) u.g/L} u.g/L} u.g/L) 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SGl 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG2 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG3 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG4 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG5 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG6 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG7 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO l SG8 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG9 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG10 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5Gll 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG12 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG13 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO SG14 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 NO , NOTES: I. Samples 5G1 through SG11 coUected by SCS Engineet'S on July 16 and 18. 2007. Samples 0012. 5G13, and oollected by 5CS Engineefs on August 21 and 24, 2007. pg/l. = micrograms per liter. <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated reporting limit. NO= Not report at'concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting Nmil BTEX = Benzene, toluene. ethytbeozene, and total xylenes. MTBE = Methyt tertiary butyt ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed In general acx;ornance with EPA Method 82608. SOURCE: 5CS Engineers T emecuIa Regional HospllaI Final SuppIerns1tal Environmental Impact Report 3.1-16 . ESA I 0207434 Ja"""Y2008 1 ) 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ] Based on the review of the ongoing groundwater assessment work being conducted by others in the proposed hospitat site's vicinity, SCS concluded in their recent analysis that MTBE-bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed hospital site along southern boundary. However, based on the previous and current soil vapor sampting, there is a less than significant related human health risk at the proposed hospital site because of the possible presence MTBE- bearing groundwater beneath the proposed hospital site. Additionally, MTBE has been phased- out as a fuel additive in the State of California. Since MTBE is no longer used in gasoline fuel distributed in California, it is unlikely that additional releases ofMTBE will occur from the USTs in the proposed hospital site vicinity. With the reduction of the MTBE sources in the proposed hospital site vicinity, along with ongoing remediation activities at the three USTs sites in the vicinity, MTBE concentrations in groundwater will likely continue to decrease; this hypothesis is corroborated by the decreasing concentration trend exhibited in the monitoring wells adjacent to the proposed hospital site (MW -24A, MW -25A, MW26A, MW -27 A, MW-28A, and MW-14). ] 1 .j 1 J ~ For illustration purposes, according to the EPA on non-occupational exposures, various studies that have collected personal breathing zone samples ofMTBE during gasoline refueling suggest that such exposures, which typically amount to two to five minutes in duration, may range as high as 2 to 32 pprn MTBE; however, most of the data for exposure during refueling are below 10 ppm for I to 20 minute sampling periods.12 The MTBE concentrations used in the hypothetical scenarios above included maximum reported concentrations of 97 ug/L or 0.097 ppm. "! ~ Ii ] As mentioned above, MTBE-bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the ,,.vt'v,ed hospital site along southern boundary. However, to address the concern that MTBE in groundwater may pose a health risk via vapor intrusion into the hospital in the event that MTBE does migrate on- proposed hospital site from the east (Arco Service Station) or from the southeast (Chevron and Shell Service Stations) under the future hospital buildings several scenarios, based on highest reported actual MTBE concentrations near the proposed hospital site were modeled to better understand the hypotheticat risk. Concentrations ofMTBE in the monitoring wells MW-24A, MW -25A, MW26A, MW -27 A, MW -28A, and MW -14 (closest monitoring wells to the proposed hospital site) have been decreasing or are below the MCLs for drinking water, making these scenarios even more conservative than current conditions at the property. Based on the modeling for these scenarios the concentrations of MTBE in groundwater would have to increase by one to two orders of magnitude before the model predicts there is even the potential for a significant health risk." ~ ,~ -, i ~ ~] i " ; The risk assessment standards for soil vapor and cleanup levels for groundwater, although both based on health risk studies, including potential carcinogenic affects, are different. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are a standard for drinking water set by the EPA in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and enforced in California by the Department of Health Services. The proposed project site's primary contaminant of concern is MTBE, which has a primary MCL I rr I ~ 12 Potential Health Ffficts aJOxygenated Gasoline, http://www.epa.gav/ataq/regslfuelslostp..4.pdf 13 Orders of magnitude are generally used to make very approximate comparisons. If two nwnbers differ by one order of magnitude, one is about ten times Jargerthan the other. l' ~ TeI'I'leQJlllIR&gionalHospi1aI Anal Supplemental ErMronmentallmpad Report 3.1-17 ESA/0201"34 Januaoy 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of 13 ug/L and a secondary MCL of 5 uglL, meaning that a water purveyor can provide water to a customer with MTBE up to 13 ug/L without advisory for health concerns and 5 ug/L for taste and odor. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Although no detectable concentrations ofMTBE or VOCs were found, Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 below sball be implemented if these constituents were detected in groundwater and vapor beneath the ,nvpv.ed hospital site buildings during construction. Again, the above- mentioned hypothetical scenarios showed that the necessary levels of MTBE to hypothetically percolate up into the buildings to cause a significant risk woutd need to be of orders of magnitude higher than has ever been seen in the adjacent site vicinity. Since MTBE is no longer used in gasoline fuel distributed in California, it is unlikely that additional releases ofMTBE will occur from the USTs in the proposed hospital site vicinity. With the reduction of the MTBE sources in the proposed hospital site vicinity, along with ongoing remediation activities at the three USTs sites in the vicinity, MTBE concentrations in groundwater will likely continue to decrease; this hypothesis is corroborated by the decreasing concentration trend exhibited in the monitoring wells adjacent to the proposed hospital site (MW-24A, MW-25A, MW26A, MW-27 A, MW-28A, and MW-14). Impact 3.1-1: Potential that existing andlor previously unidentified contamination could be encountered duriug project site preparation and constrnction activities. As described above in the environmental setting section, the proposed hospital site is within 1,000 ft of three service stations. However, according to soil vapor samples taken on July 16 and 18,2007 and again on August 21 and 24, 2007, there were no detectable concentrations of gasoline constituents such as volatile organic compounds VOCs or MTBE at the p,vl'v.ed hospital site. Sampling was done at two depths, 5 and 15 feet bgs in accordance with the DISC guidance. It is possible but unlikely that, contaminated soil could be at further distances below ground swiace. Encountering contaminated soil, swiace water, and groundwater without taking proper precautions during project construction could result in the exposure of construction workers and consequently result in associated significant adverse human health and environmental impacts. Petroleum hydrocarbons appear to be present in subswiace soils in the area of the off-site USTs; however, considering lack of any evidence of contaminated soil on the proposed hospital site based on SCS Engineers investigations and, the yv._..,:al for contamination is likely to be localized around the off-site USTs, and is unlikely to be present at the l'.vpv.ed hospital site, as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components. Conclusion: Less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Petroleum affected soils at the proposed hospital site if any, (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered) shall be segregated, stockpiled on-site, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate facility, as required by the respective disposal Ternewla RegIonal Ho:spitat Anal Supplemental EnviltHllT1eOtallf1l)3d Report 3.1-18 ESA/D207434 Jaooary2008 1 , ~ 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials , " ! facility. All contaminated soils shall be disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal taws regulating the transport and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. These materials shall be transported to a permitted disposat facility by a licensed waste hauler. 1 Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. -, Impact 3.1-2: Potential that hazardous materials could he released during the site preparation and construction activities. ~ The construction phase of the proposed project will include major excavation and grading. Disturbance of the proposed hospital site's soil could expose construction ..' v."'~.o, the public, or the physical environment to adverse health conditions due to the presence of hazardous materials such as gasoline constituents including MTBE and other VOCs. The potential for encountering these contaminants existing at the project site is considered to be unlikely. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding the handling and disposal of these hazardous substances is considered adequate to reduce potential impacts to tess than significant tevels. Therefore, implementation of the following procedures requiring compliance with applicable regulations woutd reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. ~ 'i' \I rr ~.t Conclusion: Less than significant. 11 Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, a detailed soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling program shall be conducted for the proposed hospital site. Any identified MTBE- or other VOC-impacted soil shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations during demolition of structures. The project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests, sampling, and soit monitoring test resutts) to the City ofTemecula showing that abatement of any MTBE- or other VOC-containing soil identified in the project site has been completed in full compliance with all applicabte regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 790, 792, 797, 798, and 799 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6). u ~- ., Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. u r-t ~l ,} Ii l'r t':' 5 !'1' 6 1" L.;- T emea.da Regional HospItal Fin8l Supplemental Envlroomentallmpact Report 3.1-19 ESA I 0207434 .Januaoy2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials References EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. EPN540/R-96/018. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MI'BE), http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htrn,March2oo6. Potential Health Effects o/Oxygenated Gasoline, hllD://www.eoa.l!ov/olao/rel!s/fuels/ostn-4.odf SCS Engineers, Letter Report a/Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), September 2007. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPN540/R-95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. T fIfMaJIa Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Erlvironmentallmpact Report 3.1-20 ESAI D207434 Jonuaoy 2008 "l J "1 J 3. Environmental Setting. Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise 3.2 Noise 3.2.1 Approach to Analysis , The pUlpose of this section is to identify, describe, and evaluate noise sources and potential noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital and the sirens that will transport emergency patients to the hospital. This study also address traffic noise impacts based on the updated traffic study prepared for this SEIR by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. ~ m The project has not changed since the circulation of the original EIR and other noise issues arising from operation of the project, such as the use of helicopters, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, loading dock activities, parking lot activities, trash pickups and landscaping maintenance were adequately covered in the original EIR and therefore are not addressed in this section. '1 , I d Noise Principles and Descriptors "' J The original EIR provided a detailed background that describes how noise is measured, and how different types of noise measurements are used to reflect typical noise fluctuations over time. In general, the typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audibte sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels. Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.2-1. ~ ~ Li "! , ."' Noise Exposure and Community Noise ., L.j As described in the original EIR, ,an individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period oftime. A noise tevel is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise tevels presented in Figure 3.2-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time, however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. 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 pm to 10:00 pm), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 pm to 7:00 ani) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 3.2-2 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations. ~~ ~ i I 'f .~ ~ '. ~( , '" TemeaJla Regional HospitaJ Final Supplemental ~, . , ~ I Impact R8part 3.2-1 ESAJ[)2()7.:W Janua-y 2000 -, " " > > -" -" " e . " ~ ~ " " " " .~ ~ ~. "g g g. ~. .2~ <2g ~.8 ~- .c ~- ~ll O. jje "e ., .!; 00 ;2 oc $~ s!i 5" CO uS 85 ~ ~ ~.~ ~.: = I I I II I I I I I I I I I I III I I III I I >'j ~ - ><3 ij e ; u ~. <~ ':' a u ~ ~ u ~ ~ s..( 0 :s ~ g ~ 0 '[.g ~ e i 'E ~ J:: 's ~ ~ z ~ I .i ~! ~ .2 ~ 5 i .8 Jj ; Q ::I: ~ ~ <( ~ .3 6 .3 ~ " " >. 1; ~ a E " c . ~ . g a E . c . ~ " . . " " il >.c o o 0 "~ 0_ "" ~c !l,~ c~ ;!~ ~.~ ~8. >1'-....":. : i i i ~ : :: ! !l, .-" ~~ u' :c.!;! ~:8 .?:'2 .~ ga ~~ a", c. .~ 'U~ ""- ~~ ~1!. fM.............I ! ; , , ! ; !I. g2i ~C u~ ",,8 ~8. ,.M_., f ~ j ~ 1 ~ ! : ~~~~ < < ~ < <' $<~ ~ -0 "t;I =c = Iii cc iE .;: :c. iC al o 0 <::> "'C:I -0 ~ "'0 '0 "C '0 '0 -0 ~ 00::::> 000::::>::::> 000 1IIIIIlli 11111fllll111111 .: g:5 i: e W"l 0- '=' "[ 2::> e i:i <=> 3 S 'c 5' ~ &. "'E~"".~V'j"""j::; Ogll"l== ~ >.. .- '- C!uco."...aa"a-a"a-8-8 c a c ~ ~ _lic_ ~ -tl .... Sf ~ ~ ~. "E'- ';;; ':; ~ u ~ ~ :i'~ ':J 2 .~ a ? e- e e -0 '0 ~ ~_ E"'E"~=.goc=:E ~ ~ :i:~C~!!S~fic;~~~ ~ 0 ~ t:. ~~~go"_~ed~g~~ U1 '0 ] So' = U g,. E .~ i- ~ U > 8" rr. 0.. j ~ c o Z o c o ~ .. o .3 .. ~ .2 ~ 1ii o ~ m ..J ~ ~ o 8- x UJ m o a z ..J UJ Z <.> c o E E o <.> ""'(\1"0(1) C":lICC t!C'! as 0 ~C')~~ ~~~g WT"'"G)-.J iiiN...J(/) C . Q) ::s CDC") (I) 0 E CI).-.t: CD,-Oas li::JZ> g.~"O_ (J) u.. Q) as S E f/J a. .!2la> o Ol > o ;:> Ol I >-' ~ <(' Ol ~ ~ ~ "C::S E c: '" ~ caO ",0- Ol>< ,-,w ~Ol ::J", 0.- (/)0 OlZ ",-, '-w Oz Zo c: oc: EO EE oE 00 o 5 !lJ .., c .. .. a; > .. ..J .. 0 a z .., 2 .c 0> ~ ~ ... 0 0 .., N C U .. 0 E m .; !! " ~ . 0 " '" 0 .. . 0 ~ a ~ z c . c 0; 0 ~ E E W 0 0 U a: ::> 0 U) 1 .J 3. Environmental SetOOg, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise 1 Ambulance Siren Noise ] To better analyze impacts for the proposed project, ambulance siren noise is also addressed. Ambulance siren noise is different than other community noise as it is not experienced over a long amount of time. To measure ambulance siren noise, the single event noise exposure tevel (SENEL) needs to be calculated. SENEL quantifies the duration and magnitude of a single event. However, there are two main factors that can affect an ambulance siren's SENEL. The speed of an ambulance can affect the duration as a faster ambulance passes by more quickly, and the angle at which the ambulance passes by can affect the magnitude. An ambulance that is directly behind a person is much louder than if the same ambulance was to the person's side (i.e., a 0 angle versus a 90 angle). Ambulance sirens are a unique source of noise in that they are designed and intended to be "noisy". Sirens signify a warning that an emergency vehicle is approaching and that human life is at stake. The rules of the road require that drivers respond to such sirens (e.g., by "pulling over"). , J ! .J In order to analyze the noise levels that will be experienced within the study area as a result of ambulance sirens, it was necessary to obtain measurements of typical operations. However, authorities would not pennit the operating of ambulances with sirens on the tocal streets unless under emergency conditions, and it was not practical to wait for ambulances to pass by on the street segments considered in this study. Therefore, controlled tests were conducted with the assistance of the City and American Medical Response (AMR), an operator of ambulance services in Temecula. These tests were conducted at a sports park within the City on July 17, 2007, by Wieland Associates. During the tests, the ambulance remained stationary and the siren was operated continuously while noise measurements were obtained at various distances and at various orientations relative to the location of the sirens behind the front grille of the ambulance. At each distance and orientation, the maximum, minimum and average noise levels were noted. Two siren settings were measured during the testing: "wail" and "yetp." The "wail" setting is the most typically used setting, and is used when maoeuvering through traffic. The "yelp" setting is only used in extremely heavy traffic or at intersections when it is necessary to encourage drivers to make room for the ambulance to pass by. The results of the July 17th ambulance test are presented in the Table 3.2-1 betow.1 , j 1 1 1 , .. TABLE 3.2-1 SUMMARY OF SIREN NOISE MEASUREMENTS oj '1 j ORIENT ATIOH MEASURED NOISE lEvEL AT SO' FROM SIRENS. dBA "Wan" Setting "Yelp" Setting J O' (!Tool) 45' 90' (side) 135' 180' (rear) Max. 117.6 110.2 93.9 95.9 95.4 Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. 109.2 113.4 117.5 112.9 113.6 99.8 104.7 106.7 102.1 103.5 85.8 91.9 93.7 91.3 92.2 88.8 90.9 88.9 83.9 85.5 89.4 92.3 94.2 90.9 92.5 ( J NOTES: Tests were performed by Wieland Associates, Inc. 00 July 17. 2007. A sound level meter (Model 824) and an acoustJcal calibrator (Mode( CAL250) were used to obtain noise measurements. All instruments meet the requirements of the American National Standards Instilule (ANSI). SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. } if Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Environmental Noise Study for the Temecu/a Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 19, 2007. i T emecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmeflt3llmp3d Report 3.2-3 ESA I 0207434 J"""",2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise r ! Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories: . Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; . Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and . Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no complete satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called "ambient noise" level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur: ! . Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of I dBA cannot be perceived; . Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; . A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and . A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a douhling in loudness, and can cause adverse response. . These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. l Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such at traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a Temecula RegioniII Hospital Final!,.. . ~.EnvIronmentalImpadReport 3.2-4 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 , J. . 1 j 3. Environmental Setting. Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise 1 rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. 2 3.2.2 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting The original EIR provides a description of federal, state, and local regulations that apply to the Temecula Regional Hospital project and also apply to this SEIR. 1 J Federal Regulations As stated in the original EIR, under Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) regnlations (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. J 1 State Regulations A summary of the California Code of Regnlations is described in the original EIR. The state has established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regnlations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard ofDNL 45 dB in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are Y' vyv.ed in areas subject to noise levels greater than DNL 60 dB. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. 1 J ." Local Regulations :.:-J City of Temecula General Plan-Noise Element The primary purpose of the Noise Element is to identify and assess noise sources and then minimize their effect on the surrounding area. Noise ha< a direct impact on the quality of life and the well-being of residents ofTemecula. Hospitals fall under the PubliclInstitutional designation. Table 3.2-2 below summarizes City ofTemecula noise standards for various uses. '-1 i ..> ~ The following are goals and policies of the City ofTemecula General Plan-Noise Element. Goal I: Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.2: Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays. Goal 4: Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. ~ u u 2 Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. r L T emeo.da Regional HoI;pItal FlnaI Supplemental ErMfOnmentallmpact Report 3.2-5 ESA I 02Q7434 Janua<y 2008 3. Environmental Selling, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise TABLE 3.2-2 CITY OF TEMECULA NOISE STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Type of Us. Residential Commercial and Office Light Industrial Publicllnstitutional Open Space Land Use Designation Hillside Rural Very low Low low Medium Medium High Neighborhood Community Highway Tourist Service Professional Office Industrial Part. Schools All Others Vineyards/Agricultural Open Space I , , Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Interior Exterior 45 65 I I 45 45 65170 70' 70 50 55 50 50 70 75 65 70 70 701652 NOlES: 1. Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed lor multiple-famlly housing. 2. Where qu~t is a basis required for the land use. SOURCE: City orTemecula Genernl Plan Noise Element, 1993. Policy 4.1: Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. Imolementation and Procedures N-2. Minimize noise in Temecula through the following measures: . Require all non-emergency construction activity to comply with the limits (maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity) established in State and City noise regnlations (Title 24 Califomia Code of Regulations. Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code). . Amend the City Noise Control Ordinance to establish criteria for acceptable placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. . Require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet with City noise reduction requirements. . Review the City Noise Control Ordinance for adequacy and amend as needed to address community needs and development pattems. Temewla Regional Hospital Floal~taIEnvfronmentaJlmpadReport 3.2-6 ESA I D207434 ~2008 , , 1 3. Emlironmental Setting, Impacts. and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise City of Temecula Municipal Code 1 j Section 8.32.020 Construction Restricted: Notwithstanding any provision of the City Ordinance No. 90-04. and specifically subsection G(I) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, during such time as this ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 pm and 6:30 am, Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday. Further. no construction activity shall be undertaken 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 codified in this chapter. Residents working on their homes or property are exempt from the prohibition of construction activities on Sundays and holidays but must comply with the hourly restrictions set forth for Saturday when working on Sundays and holidays. The city council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 94-25 ~ 2) , j 1 i 1 Existing Conditions Sensitive Receptors j; Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others because of the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, hotels, schools, rest homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences at approximately 305 feet away from the proposed hospital site and a church that is over 1.000 feet away. 1 " ,i; , , The project site is otherwise surrounded by non-sensitive receptors such as commercial and office uses (see Figure 3.2-3). Specifically, these land uses are as follows: . To the north and northwest the land uses are single family residences and undeveloped land. . To the south beyond Highway 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 medical 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 structures 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 within the General Plan. ~ .. -' " T emewIa Regional HospItal FIflal Supplemental Environmental Impact Roport 3.2-7 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 L t /i ,'i , I l \11-- rlr~i): j !~ ~ : ~ ". 1\ : uillillllUJ -~- ---. =, "'~ '~'i\~ ..:~ ill '~ 'Ii 1'1 I"" .. ,i q II ~ ',::![i \I ~ J", '\',' /!l. t'! ',! . I" ,: : I, \ ' HI 1'\:, \: [:i I Ii I ili! /!I In.. , :; iil: iI. I i'.II' ------ : \; 11 "llllli'\ "1 l I 1111 '( I 'lu: l~\ \ : I ,i \ I ; '.' ~':'i~'" +. 1'1 \ mm' ,I , ,,' I' -, 'II ~ 1 ~ CO GI " V; GI a:: - z 0 Ii: I I I ~ III 'I ~II .11 Q " . "II III " itdil i- ll! z }.. Vi :l . . Do al1 : ~ ( hdUdur. r~- . ".---~-- r I: ;, " ,,'" C '" . '" it C'! 0: ~ (') CO . G) :t:: ~:;Cf.) We> 'iG- "ll.. .. E .. 1i 0- ~ (f) 2! '0. ~ o I .. "5 o .. E ~ .. o l d E ,; .. ,,' "0 c o o '" u c . " j; W I.) II: " o '" 1 1 1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Moasures 3.2 Noise 1 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 use 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. 1 1 1 ".~ To document the existing noise levels, Wieland Associates measured noise levels at five locations in the vicinity of the project site (see Figure 3.2-4). The five locations were as follows: . 30390 De Portola Road . 30955 De Portola Road . 31775 De Portola Road .I . On the project site, at the location of the proposed five-story bed tower. . 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79)3 The sununary of their findings is in the following Table 3.2-3. 1 j I TABLE 3.2-3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS -. f .;} location Number 3 location Description Measurement Measured Average CNEt., dB Period Noise Level, dB(A) 30390 De Portol. Road 24 hours 45.2-59.3 59.8 30955 De Portol. Road 24 hours 48.8-62.3 62.8 31775 De Portol. Road 24 hours 45.2-59.2 57.8 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed 20 minutes 50.3 N/A tower 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours 47.0-57.9 60.8 (adjacent to Highway 79) 2 " 4 5 "j NOTES: Samples oollected by Wl8tand Associates, Inc. on July 17 and 18, 2007. A 24-hour noise measurement was not obtained at location #4 due to the inabltity to pnMde adequate security for the equipment. Instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Modets 712, 820, and 870) and an acoustical calibrator (M~ CAl2OO). All instrumentation meets the mquirements of the Amecican National Standards Institute (ANSI) 51.4-1971. SOURCE; Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 1 J ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 3 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. .;; T emecula RegiOnal Hospilal FIfl8I Supplemental Envtronmentallmpact Report 3.2-9 ESA/D207.434 _...,2008 -.t'Ct' ~ t.:l~.g b~~ co CIl <) i....S -~ III 01- ~ _ c. - II- <ll ~ E ~ ~ 0. ::> g- ~ <f) <ll -;; ~ :a Q) '" <f) o ._ :x: 0 " -Z '5 " ! \ \ \ \ \ I, i I, \ \ \ \ \ \ i " " ,; ~ ;; "0 o ~ :'I. ~ " 3 ~ 6 on , 1 1 3. EnvitonmentaJ Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Existing Noise Environment The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic noise. Other noise producers include stationary noise like the noise produced by the HV AC systems from the nearby commercial uses. Table 3.2-4 summarizes the existing level of traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site. ""1 1 , J TABLE 3.2-4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ~ Unmitigated Arterial I Reach CNEL @ 50' Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 68.5 dB South of Highway 79 67.5 d8 De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 64.5 dB Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 71.5dB Margarita Road I Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De portola 68.5 dB De Portota to Highway 79 70.5 dB South of Highway !~_ 71.0dB Highway 79 West of 1-15 Freeway 74.0 dB West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pata Rd.) 79.5 dB West of Margarita Road 76.0 dB West of Butterfield stage Road 75.5 dB ~ 1 .J ~; ... , , ~ ij ; n ,;; t; &0 dB Distance to CNEL Contour from Near Lane Centerline, ft. 70 dB 520 1,000 680 640 65 dB 75dB aOdB 235 200 100 83 120 368 170 69 100 143 56 155 62 ~._"--------- 255 110 560 278 120 340 t55 62 320 t43 56 235 320 340 NOTES: Noise levels calculated using the highway traffIC noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Ad" - ",_,~... (as described in report FHWA-RO-77~108). Tmffic volume data was provided by Unscott. Law, and Greenspan Engineers. 2007. Speeds were based on the observed posted speed limits. The truck mix on Highway 79 was based on data published by Caltrans. The truck mix on the remaining streets was based on data provided by the County of R/vefside. The California reference energy mean emission (Calveno) reve.s developed by Caltrans were used in the """-_:~__ . model. .J 1.1 SOURCE: WIeland Associates, Inc., 2007. rr , ~, i.ii ~ 3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Previous Project Site Evaluation a In September 2005, Wieland Associates, Inc. prepared a noise study for the project site to estimate the combined constrnction noise levels that would be generated during each phase of construction. This study was included as part of the noise analysis in the original EIR. The analysis in that study used equipment estimates based on the Palm Desert Hospital that is similar n 6 p , TemewlaRegional Hospllal Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-11 ESA J D207434 _2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise enough in size and design to provide an adequate model for the project. In 2007, Wieland re- evaluated the site using new software now available (Urbemis 2007, 9.2) for use in analyzing noise impacts. Use of this new software generated substantially lower construction noise impacts. Therefore, to provide a conservative estimate of construction noise impacts of the project, this analysis uses the higher impact levels reported in the noise analysis for the original EIR, as reproduced in Table 3.2-5 in the Impact Assessment and Methodology section.4 TABLE 3.2-5 ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Noise- Estimated Attenuation Estimated CNEL Estimated Estimated Sensitive Construction CNEL at due to at Sensitive Construction Noise Increase due to location Phase 5011.dB Distance. dB- location, dSb + Ambient, dB' Construction dBc Demoiition 86 70 7t 8 Nearest Grading 91 75 75 12 residences to -16(305') the northwest Construction 87 71 72 9 Paving 90 74 74 12 -----~~_.__._--~-_.__. ~,-~-_._---_._- ------_._-~------- --_.__...~._- Demolition 86 57 62 2 Nearest Grading 9t 62 64 4 residences to -24 (760') the south Construction 87 58 63 2 Paving 90 61 64 3 Demolition B6 61 7t Nearest offices Grading 91 66 71 to the ea~t -25 (880') Construction 87 62 71 Paving 90 65 7t Demolition B6 63 71 Nearest offices Grading 91 68 72 2 to the west -23 (745') Construction 87 64 71 Paving 90 67 72 2 NOTES: a. Attenuation Is based on a reduction d 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the SOOr09. Distance Is ca$culated from the center of the project site. b. At nearest residences to the south. 5 dB of attenuation Is assumed foe the waf! adjacent to Highway 79. AJ. offICe properties to the east and west, an existing CNEl of 70 dB is assumed based on Table 3.2-2. c. The estimated -construction + amtMenr noise levels and estimated increases due to construction are based on Ule ambient noise levels measured for this supplemental study. Refer to Table 3.2-2. SOURCE: Wieland i..................",... Inc.. 2007. Significance Criteria According to the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, a project would result in a significant noise impactifitvvould: 4 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Ternewla Regional Hospital Final Supplemental.::" ,. "".. ..,allmpact Report 3.2-12 ESA'0207434 January 2008 Impact Assessment and Methodology Construction As stated above, the 2007 study done by Wieland, using the Urbemis 2007 9.2 software yielded construction noise estimates that were lower than those yielded by the 2005 study, Therefore, in the interest of being as conservative as possible for this SEIR, Wieland decided to continue with their analysis using the 2005 estimates that are based on the Palm Desert Hospital. t i j . r j . , 1 . r . . , 1 ~ l ~ ~ Traffic ~ . 3. Environmental Selling, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Create a substantially permanent increase (greater than 3 dBA) in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in arnbient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Be located within an airport land use plan or be located where such a plan has not been adopted and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. . Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Using project site data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Wieland estimated the amount of traffic the proposed project would generate under four different scenarios. These scenarios are "Opening Year (phase I)," "Opening Year + Entire Project (phase I and II)," "Opening Year + Cumulative Projects," and "Buildout." The goal was to estimate traffic at all stages of development. The results for each case are presented in Tables 3.2-6 through 3.2-9 below. The tables give the estimated CNEL at the project site that would be attributed to traffic. i J Ambulance Siren Noise Based on stationary ambulance siren tests done in the City ofTemecula, Wieland were able to estimate the noise impact from ambulances traveling to the proposed project (see Table 3.2-1 for stationary ambulance test results). Since Highway 79 has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph), and thus ambulances would pass by faster than on roads with lower limits, the estimated SENEL on Highway 79 is I 12.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. De Portola Road has a speed limit of 35 mph, so its SENEL is higher at 114.5 dB(A). Margarita Road has a speed limit of 45 mph and an estimated SENEL of 113.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. 1 ; ~ ii 1 ~ , ,. 3.2-13 Temewla Regional Hospital FI"LQI Supplemental Environmeotallmpact Report ESA/0207434 --.2006 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise TABLE 3.2-6 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR, PROJECT PHASE I Avg. Daily Traffie Unmitigated CNEL @ SO' Change Due to Arterial I Reaeh Without Project With Phase I Without Project With Phase I Project Bu~dSmg.Road North of Highway 79 t3,950 14.450 68.S dB 69.0 dB O.SdB South of Highway 79 14.500 15.130 68.0 dB 68.0 dB 0.0 dB I I De PortoIa Road West of Margarita Road 8,720 9.3S0 64.S dB 6SdB O.SdB Pechanga Pkwy. (Para Rd.) South of Highway 79 46.760 47.070 12.0 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB Margarim Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith 10 De Portota t9,290 20,230 69.0 dB 69.S dB O.SdB De Portola to Highway 79 28.560 29,500 11.0 dB 11.0 dB 0.0 dB South of Highway 79 27.470 28,tOO 71.SdB 7t.SdB O.OdB Highway 79 West of 1-15 Freeway 21,470 21.660 74.S dB 74.S dB 0.0 dB West of Pechanj:Ja Pkwy. {Pala 84,580 86.470 79.0 dB 80.0 dB O.SdB West of Margarita Road 42,S10 4S,780 76_S dB 77.0 dB O.SdB West of Butterfield Stage Road 37,280 38.480 76.0 dB 76.0 dB O_OdB NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, law & Greenspan, Engineeffi, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. TABLE 3.2-7 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS. OPENING YEAR, ENTIRE PROJECT PHASES I AND II Av~Traffit:: Un~r.:W':I__~:'!2:......- Change Due to Arterial I Reach Without Project With Ph. I & U Without Project With Ph. I & II Project Bunet1leld stage Road North of Highway 79 13,950 14,920 68.S dB 69.0 dB O.SdB South of Highway 79 t4.500 tS,710 68.0 dB 68.0 dB 0_0 dB De Porfola Road West of Margarita Road 8,720 9.930 64_5 dB 6S.0 dB O.SdB Pechanga Pkwy. (Pa/a Rd.) South of Highway 79 46.760 47,360 12.0 dB 72_0 dB O_OdB Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portota t9,290 21,100 69.0 dB 69.5 dB 0.5 dB De Portola to Highway 79 28,560 30,070 71.0dB 7t.OdB 0,0 dB Soulh of Highway 79 27,470 28,680 71.5dB 72.0 dB 0.5 dB Highway 79 West of 1-15 Freeway 21,470 21.830 74.5 dB 74.5 dB O_OdB West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pata Rd.) 84.580 88.220 79.5 dB 80.0 dB O.SdB West of Margarita Road 42.5tO 48.810 76.5 dB 77.0 dB 0.5 dB West of Butterfield Stage Road 37,280 39,S90 76,0 dB 76_0 dB 0_0 dB NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott. Law & Greenspan. Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: W.eaand Associates, Inc., 2007. T emeaJIa Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Envlronmool:allmpad Report 3.2-14 ESA f 0207434 Jonua<y 2008 1 1 ; 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigatkln Measures 3.2 Noise 1 TABLE 3.2-8 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS , Avg. Dally Traffic Unmitigated CNEL@5O' Change Due to Arterial I Reach Without Protect With Ph. I & II Without Project With Ph. I & II Project Butterfield Stage Road Nor1h of Highway 79 22,130 23,100 70.5 dB 7t.OdB 0.5dB South of Highway 79 24,750 25,960 70.0 dB 70.5 dB 0.5dB De Portols Road West of Margarita Road 10,450 11.660 65.5 dB 66.0 dB 0.5dB Pechanga Pkwy. (pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 69,410 70,OtO 74.0 dB 74.0 dB O,OdB Margarita Road. / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola 24,250 26,06ll 70.0 dB 70.5 dB 0.5dB De Portola to Highway 79 35,860 37,690 72.0 dB 72.0 dB O.OdB South of Highway 79 37,330 38,540 73.0 dB 73.0 dB 0.0 dB Highway 79 West of 1-15 Freeway 32,t30 32.490 76,0 dB 76.0 dB 0.0 dB West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 1t9.700 123,490 81.5dB 81.5dB O.OdB West of Margarita Road 76,180 82,480 79.0 dB 79,5 dB 0.5dB West of Buttertield Stage Road 57,570 59.860 78.0 dB 78.0 dB 0.0 dB NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Gruenspan, Engineers. 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. TABLE 3.2-9 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, BUILDOUT 1 ] '1 .i ] J '] , :2 "1 Arterial/Reach Avg. Dally Traffic Unmltl9ated CNEt. at 50' ButleI1Ield Stage Road North of Highway 79 19,000 70.0 dB South of Highway 79 20,000 69.0 dB De Porto's Road West of Margarita Road t1,000 64.5 dB Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 29,000 70.0 dB Highway 79 Westofl-15 Freeway 9,000 70.5 dB West of :',.;,..... Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 59,000 78.0 dB West of Margarita Road 5t,OOO 77.5 dB West of Butterfield Stage Road 50.000 77.5 dB i ., .~ , j a I J NOTES: TraffIC data provided by Unscott, Law & Greenspan. Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. '" ~ Temecula Regional HospItal FIrnII Supplemental EnYiroomentallmpact Report 3.2-15 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise To arrive at a CNEL that accounts for ambulance sirens, it must first be estimated how many trips per day an ambulance with its sirens on would use a particular road. To do this, Wieland Associates, Inc. used data from the period of January J, 2007 to July 18, 2007 (see Table 3.2-10).5 It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate, because it assumes that all regional ambulance trips will be going to or from the project site, even though there are other existing medical facilities currently serving the region. Of the total number of ambulance trips, only 10-12 percent are considered Code 3 (sirens on). The others would not require ambulance sirens. Using the SENEL estimates from Table 3.2-11 and 12 percent of the ambulance trip estimates from Table 3.2-10, Wieland was able to estimate a CNEL for the project site that incorporates arnbulance sirens. These estimates are summarized in the following table. It should be noted that sirens are never used on hospital property. TABLE 3.2-10 ESTIMATED AMBULANCE OPERATIONS PER DAY EXISTING" With Proposed Hospltalb Street Segment 7am_7pmc 7pm.10pmc 10pm_7amc 7am.7pmc 7pm-10amc 1Opm-7amc Highway 79, Margarita to 0.21 0.07 O,Ot 14.65 5.00 0.36 Pala Margarita, Highway 79 to De 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.71 0.00 Portala De Portala, Pia Pica to 0,00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.71 0.36 Margarita De Portala. Pio Pica to 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.71 Jedidiah Smith [ NOTES: a Based on _.........:_...... from 1/112007 through 7/1812007. b Based on estimated annual: _'" ~ _~ room transports of 8,609 provided by AMR. The distribution of ambulance runs on the four street segments and over the three times periods was assumed using the distribution for the existing runs. C Number Indicates SYerage number of ambulance operations during the 12 hour period from 7am to 7pm, or the three-hour period from 7pm to 1Opm, Of the nine-hour period from 10pm to 7am. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. TABLE 3.2-11 ESTIMATED CNEL DUE TO AMBULANCE OPERATIONS Estimated CNEL at 50 ft. Existing Future Estimated Estimated Increau In Ambulance Ambulance Ambulance Sirens Ambient CNEL due to Street Segment Sirens Sirens +Ambient CNEL b Ambulance Sirens Highway 79, Margarita to Pala 60.0 dB 64.0 dB" 66,0 dB 5.0dB Margarita. Highway 79 to De Portola 49.5 dB 59.0 dB 61.5dB 3.5 dB De Portola, Pia Pico 10 Margarita 54.0 dB 63.5 dB 64.5 dB 6.5dB De Portola, Pia Pica to Jedidiah Smith 55.5 dB 65.0 dB 67.0 dB 4.0dB NOTES: a Estimated CNEL assumes 5 dB of reduction for the existing residential waRs along Highway 79. b Ambient CNEL at SO' taken from measurement results of Table 3.2.2. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 5 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Temec:ulaRegionalHospitaI Fmalf,..... "J1Envlronmentallflll3dReport 3.2-t6 ESA/D207434 January 2008 . 1 ~ 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise 1 Summary of Impacts For the purposes of this SEIR, only the significance criteria regarding construction noise and traffic noise need be discussed, as the temporary noise from construction and the permanent noise from emergency sirens have the potential to disturb nearby residences (sensitive receptors). As discussed below, the proposed project would adhere to mitigation measures prescribed for this significant impact. However, even with mitigation incorporated, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from noise. 1 "1 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.2-1: Development of the proposed project would result in temporary noise impacts during construction. Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Table 3.2-12 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.2-13 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. Noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City's ordinance limiting, the hours of construction, provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB (see Table 3.2-5). This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the project site. With implementation of mitigation measures, the construction noise levels would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed project site. j ~ j ~ j ] ] 1 J Conclusion: Significant and unavoidable. ~; TABLE 3.2-12 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS "' , ,J Construction ~hase Noise Level (Leq) . J Ground Clearing Excavation Foundations Erection Finishing 84 89 78 85 89 I NOTES: a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associmed with 8 given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipmenl associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise 61>m Construction Equipment and Oper9lions, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. .( j ""J; j T emecuIa Regional Hospital Fmal Supplemental EnvIronmenlallmpact Report 3.2-17 ESA f 0207434 January 2008 ~, 3. EnvIronmental Selling, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise TABLE 3.2-13 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Dump Truck Portable Air Compressor Concrete Mixer (Truck) Scraper Jack Hammer Dozer Paver Generator Pile Driver Backhoe Noise Level (Leq at 50 feet) 88 81 85 88 88 87 89 76 101 85 ! SOURCE: Cunniff, E..:.~. "".,_, NoIse Pollution, 19n. Mitigation: Mitigation Measnre 3.2-1: The following measures should be considered in the project's design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: . 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. . Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula Municipal Code, . All Construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. . Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. . The project proponent will hire a noise monitor to accept complaints and confirm compliance with above-mentioned mitigation measures. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. To minimize construction noise levels at the nearby y,vye,;ies, the contractor shall comply with the above-mentioned recommendations provided in Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. In addition, to the extent practical, the contractor shall consider the following noise abatement measures: . Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. . In order to minimize the time during which any single noise-sensitive receptor is exposed to construction noise, construction shall be completed as rapidly as possible. · The quietest construction equipment owned by the contractor shall be used. The use of electric powered equipment is typically quieter than diesel, and hydraulic powered equipment is quieter than pneumatic power. If compressors powered by diesel or gasoline engines are to be used, they shall be contained or have baffles to help abate noise levels. Temecula Regional HospllaI Final Supplemer1tal e- , ,~Impact Report 3.2-18 ESA. f 0207434 .-...,. 2008 1 . . . '~ i r ,I . ] , , ,;I ~ -, 3. EnVironmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise All construction equipment shall be properly maintained. Poor maintenance of equipment typically causes excessive noise levels. Noisy equipment shall be operated only when necessary, and shall be switched off when Dot in use. Storage areas shall be located away from sensitive receptors. Where this is not possible, the storage of waste materials, earth, and other supplies shall be positioned in a manner that will function as a noise barrier to the closest sensitive receivers. Public notice shall be given prior to construction identifying the location and dates of construction, the name and phone number of the contractor's contact person in case of complaints, and the name and phone number of a contact person at the City of Temecula in case of complaints. The public notice shall encourage the residents to call the contractor's contact person and/or the City's contact person rather than the police in case of complaint. Residents shall also be kept informed of any changes to the schedule. The contractor's designated contact person shall be on site throughout project construction with a mobile phone. If a complaint is received, the contractor's contact person and/or the City's contact person shall take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. Ifpossible, a member of the contractor's team shall also travel to the complainant's location to understand the nature of the disturbance. >i Impact 3.2-2: Development of the proposed project would increase noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambnlance siren noise. 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 cause the 65 dB CNEL threshold of significance to be exceeded at existing residential or school land uses in the study area. Therefore, the impact is not significant. Project traffic will cause the 70 dB CNEL threshold of significance to be exceeded by 0.5 dB at existing public/institutional (except school), open space, commercial, and office land uses adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road south of Highway 79 and Margarita Road between Jedidiab Smith Road and De Portola Road. This will be the case only for the "Opening Year + Cumulative Projects" traffic volume. The threshold will not be exceeded under any other traffic scenario addressed in this study. As a result, it may be concluded that there is no direct project impact, but there is a cumulative impact. However, as indicated in Figure 3.2-1 an increase of 0.5 dB is imperceptible; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Without accounting for ambulance siren noise, traffic noise impacts generated by the proposed project would be less than significant. a C1 d ,>~ - ~ , J j When ambulance siren noise is added to the equation, traffic noise generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. Ambulance siren noise would increase CNEL by more than 3 dB (see Table 3.2-11). Also, residents along emergency routes would be exposed to unmitigated maximum noise levels of about 94 to 117.5 dB(A) from ambulance sirens. However, the City does not regnlate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no ] n " '. .. '1 ~ 3.2-19 T emeo.da Regional HospItal Final Supplemental f . _ _allmpact Report ESA I 0207434 Ja....." 2008 3. Em:._....._......, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed projects are significant and unavoidable. Conclusion: Significant and unavoidable. Mitigation: None required, because noise standards do not apply to emergency situations. No mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. References City ofTemecula, City ofTemecula General Plan - Noise Element, April 2005. County of Riverside, County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. City ofTemecula, Municipal Code. P.F. Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noisefrom Construction Equipment and Operations. Building Equipment. and Home Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, Augnst 2, 2007. [ TemewIa Regional Hospital Anal Supplemenlal Environmentallmpad Report 3.2-20 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 'l J 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic 1 3.3 Traffic 3.3.1 Approach to Analysis 1 .J Section 3.3 of the Draft SEIR evaluates the changes in vehicular traffic attributable to the development of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital, based upon the traffic impact analysis completed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) completed in October, 2007. The complete traffic study is included in Appendix D in the Draft EIR. This section also documents existing traffic and circulation system conditions, identifies and differentiates between direct project-related traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce potential direct project and cumulative impacts to insignificant levels, and identifies specific mitigation measure implementation requirements, funding source and party responsible for completion of individual mitigation measures. This section uses the terms SR-79 and Highway 79 interchangeably. g j '" 3.3.2 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions d r1 The following describes the existing transportation conditions in the vicinity of the project site (Figure 3.3-1). It includes an analysis of the traffic circulation characteristics of the 10 study intersections. The 10 study intersections are as follows: LJ ~ . SR 79/1-15 SB Ramps; . SR 79/1-15 NB Ramps; . SR 79/La paz Street; . SR 79/ Pechanga Parkway; . SR 79/Jedediab Smith Road; . SR 79/ Avenida De Missiones; . SR 79/ Country Glen Way; . SR 79/ Redhawk ParkwaylMargarita Road; . SR 79/Butterfleld Stage Road; and . De Portola RoadlMargarita Road. r L q ; , 1 li Existing Street Network Highway 79 is classified as a Six-Lane Prime Arterial in the project area and is built as a six-lane roadway in the project vicinity. Curbside parking is generally prohibited along Highway 79, and the posted speed limit is 55 mph. u ~ La paz Street is a two-lane undivided roadway in the project area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, and curbside parking is generally permitted. La Paz Street is signalized at Highway 79. IT t' W I' l,-. Temecula RegIona' HospilaI Final Supplemental Envlronmenlallmpact Report 3.3-1 ESAJD207434 ,,,,,,,,,,2008 l; ! \\\ ~\\\\ ~uidlll lU!~i"~h !l · I 11' \ I' I ~e301'j\t%~~U '" ...... ~ ~ -?C~ ~ ../;'1 ~., , . ------.-- 0" ~ <D' ~ 'l\ '. ,...... .' .' -111'- -';: --- - ;,.- ~""'\\\" . ....... \{t\ z .....,. ,-~". [ 111'-'-- r, '\ \\If ~ .......... 00 ....... E ~t?(O 'S~\-o (\1C"J~ . G).- ~SO Ul 01 U> iC-- C cu.. 0 ~ -:8 <D -0 _ c % 0 <i\ () OJ Ol '" C ~ ~ o ,- ~ ~ -s o <D E ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ < ~ . (; -0 C . ; 'Ii o . c :; ;,; <> a: :> g 3. Environmen~ Setting, Impacts. and Mitigation Measures 3.3 TraffIC Pechanga Parkway is currently a four-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is prohibited at the approach to Highway 79, but is otherwise permitted. The posted speed limit on Pechanga Parkway is 50 mph. Pechanga Parkway is signalized at Highway 79. 1 ,1 Avenida de Missiones is a four-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is generally permitted, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. ~ Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway is classified as a four-lane Major roadway in the project area. Margarita Road is currently a four-lane divided roadway with curbside parking generally prohibited. Redhawk Parkway is also currently a four-lane divided roadway in the project area with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway is currently signalized at its intersection with Highway 79. a " 1 , .. Bntterfield Stage Road is classified as a four-lane Major roadway in the project area. Butterfield Stage Road is currently a four-lane divided roadway in the project area with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Butterfield Stage Road is signalized at Highway 79. 'j ~i n u De Portola Road is a four-lane road east of Margarita Road and a two-lane undivided roadway west of Margarita Road. ~ Eastern By-Pass is a planned future facility between 1-15, south of Highway 79 South and Borel Road in the northeastern section of the City. This facility will be called Deer Hollow Way, between 1-15 and midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. To the east of the previous section, this facility will be called Anza Road up to its terminus with Borel Road. n iJ This facility will include a new interchange at 1-15, to be located south of Highway 79 South, which is approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) at a cost of $47,840,000. q " ,; The Deer Hollow Way section of the Eastern By-Pass is planned to be a six-lane divided Principal Arterial from 1-15 to Rainbow Canyon Road and a four-lane major arterial from Rainbow Canyon Road to midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This roadway section is also approved by RCTC. The Anza Road Section of the Eastern By-Pass is planned to be a Four-Lane Undivided Secondary Arterial from Midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road to Butterfield Stage Road and a Two-Lane Undivided Rural Highway between Butterfield Stage Road and Borel Road. .~ 01 I!J! Ii With the completion of the Eastern By-Pass, the current traffic volumes on Highway 79 and at the 1-15/ Highway 79 South interchange are expected to reduce substantially. I Currently, the implementation schedule for this improvement is not known and therefore, these improvements are not assumed in the near-term. However, the City ofTemecula General Plan includes the Eastern Bypass in the Year 2025. Therefore, the Year 2025 analysis included in this report assumes the same. 11' :t B r't , H ~ T emecula Ragk:lnaJ HospItal FInal Supplemental EnvlronmentaJ Impact Report 3.3-3 ESA I 0207434 Jonuaoy 2008 " ..'" 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 TraffIC Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes Peak Hour Intersection Volume Counts Available AM and PM peak hour volumes were obtained from the City and new manual counts were conducted by LLG at the four locations listed below, in the second week of July, 2007. . Highway 79/1-15 SB Ramps . Highway 79/ 1-15 NB Ramps r . Highway 79 / La Paz St . Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Figure 3.3-2 depicts the existing peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the manual count sheets. Segment Counts Available daily segment volumes were obtained from the City and new counts were conducted by LLG at the three locations listed below, in the second week of July, 2007. . Highway 79 West ofI-15 . Butterfield Stage Road North of SR-79 . Butterfield Stage Road South ofSR-79 Table 3.3-1 summarizes the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the major area roadways. Figure 3.3-2 depicts the existing 24-hour segment volumes. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the segment count sheets. TABLE 3.3-1 EXISTING SEGMENT VOLUMES Street Segment Source ADT' Date Highway 79 West of 1-15 LLG Engineers 19.700 07/11/07 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula n.600 2006 Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd City ofTemecula 39.000 2006 Margarita Rd to Bunerfield Stage Rd City of Temecufa 34.200 2006 Pechanga Parkway South ofSR-79 City of Temecula 42.900 Feb-06 Buttelfteld Stage Road Nor1h of SR-79 LLG Engineers t2.BOO 071ft/07 South of SR-79 LLG Engineers 13.300 0711 t/07 De Portola Road Wesl of Margarita Rd City of Temecula 8.000 2()06 Margarita Road I Redhawk Parkway Jededtah Smith Road to De Portola Road City of Temecula 17,700 2()06 De Portala Road to Highway 79 City of Temecula 26,200 2006 South of Highway 79 City of Temecula 25,200 2()06 Footnotes: 8. Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Appendix 0 of this SEIR, Appendix ^ of the Octobec' 2007 llG study contains the segment count sheets) SOURCE: City of Temecu!a T emea.Jla Regional Hospital final SUpplemental E. ~llmpacl Report 3.3-4 ESA I 0207434 _"", 2008 f.,. ~." -..-.Il ISI':;;~ .~ " !,:. .j \\-~,..,.,.;J ~ i.i._,. .J ~'~M"_.J ........,""" -- ~ ~., ~.-<J NOTES: - NJT (Averuge Dally Truffle) ehown mid block - AM/PM peck hour wlum.. ore ehown at the Inlenleotlona .',....~. . ~ V.Ill. "'" -1212m4'. ,*1271 : :,..1/'1102_''\/' ',.~I$/1117",,\ ! t ' . ~. . - . . - . ...... .-,., '. .....,..,.. NORIH G NQTlOEALE SOURCE: linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 FIgure 3.3-2 Existing Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours & ADT 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic 3.3.3 Approach and Methodology This section of the SEIR analyzes the key intersections and street segments in the project area. All of these facilities are analyzed under existing and several future analysis timeframes to determine the project impacts on the prevailing street network during each timeframe. Peak hour intersection and daily segments have been analyzed under the following scenarios. Segment analysis is only conducted for the Build-out (Year 2025) Scenario: . Existing . Opening Year Without Project (Existing + 3 percent growth in existing traffic for three years) . Opening Year With Project Phase I . Opening Year With Entire Project (phases I and II) . Opening Year With Entire Project (phases I and IT) and Cumulative Projects . Build-out (Year 2025) I Traffic Operations There are different methodologies used to analyze signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, street segments, freeways, and Congestion Management Program (CMP) arterials. The measure of effectiveness for intersection operations is Level of Service (LOS). In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HeM), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The level of service analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms ofletters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, levels 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 3.3-2 below summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections. LOS A describes vyo,u.:ons 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] 0.1 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. TemeaJla Regional HospltaI Final Supplumantal Environmental Impact Report 3.3-6 ESA I 0207434 """"2008 ] 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic ., j TABLE 3.3-2 LOS DEFINITIONS LOS interpretation Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (SecondsNehiele) 0.0 S 10.0 10.] to 20.0 21.1 to 35.0 35.11055.0 55.1 to 80.0 ;0:80.0 "' 1 A B C o E F ExceOent operation - free Row Very good operation - stable flow,little or no delays Good operation - slight delays Fair operation - noticeable delays, queuing observed Poor operation -lOng delays, near or at capacity Forced now - congestion SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 "1 ; .. 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. 1 , J J LOS 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 result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher vie ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are more frequent. , a 1 LOS E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 seconds to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high vie ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. J '.-.,. LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of over 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation (i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high vie ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. ;:..j Street Segments The street segments were analyzed on a daily basis without and with project conditions by comparing the ADT volume to the Riverside County Capacity Standards. This table is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study) and provides LOS estimates based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics. Table 3.3-3 below provides a summary of the volume capacity I level of service for Riverside County roadways. ~ If ~ f> bi ~, L; TemeaJla Regionall'bspltal Anal Supplemental EnvIronmental tmpact Report 3.3-7 ESA/D207434 Ja.....,. 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-3 VOLUME CAPACITY I LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY ROADWAYS (1) Maximum Two-Way Traffic Volume (AD1)(2) Roadway Number of Classification Lanes Service Service Service Service Service Le""IA Level B Level C Level 0 LevelE Collector 2 7.800 9,100 10,400 11,700 13,000 Major 4 20.460 23,870 27,300 30,700 34,100 Urban 4 21,540 25,130 28,700 32.300 35,900 Urban 6 32,340 37,730 43,100 48,500 53.900 Footnotes: 1. All capacity figures are based on optimum cooditions and are intended as guidelines for planning purposes only. 2. Maximum two-way ADT values are based on !he 1999 Modified Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Tables as defined in the Riverside County Congestiorl Ma ~...' , . Program. SOURCE: Unscott law alld Greenspan, Ternecula Regional Hospital TraffIC Impact Report, 2007. 3.3.4 Significance Criteria Based on City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element policy, a significant impact is determined on a roadway segment or intersection with the addition of project traffic if: . The increase in the vIe ratio on roadway segments is greater than 2 percent; or . The increase in the delay at intersections is greater than 2 seconds The impact is direct if the project causes a reduction in the LOS to below "D" and the impact is cumulative if the level of service is below LOS "D" prior to the addition of project. 3.3.5 Analysis of Existing Conditions Table 3.3-4 summarizes the existing intersection conditions. As shown, all intersections are currently calculated to operate at an LOS D or better except the SR 79/Pechanga Parkway intersection (LOS F during PM peak hour). Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix C of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the existing peak hour intersections analysis worksheets. 3.3.6 Daily Street Segment level of Service Table 3.3-5 shows the existing street segment operations. As shown, all street segments are currently calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: . SR 79 from 1-15 to Pechanga Parkway (LOS F) . Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 (LOS F) T emecula Regional HospItal Fmal Supp/ernental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-8 ESA I 0207434 Januaoy 2008 . ~ .J , I J 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 TraffIC Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) traffic generation rates are generally used to determine trip generation for projects in the City ofTemecula. Hospital trip generation rates published in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region are higher than !TE rates and hence were used to calculate worst-case total trip generation for the hospital portion of the project. The trip generation rates in (!TE) Trip Generation were used for the Medical Office building. There are no standard trip generation rates available for the Cancer Rehabilitation Center and the Physical Rehabilitation Center. Hence, the rates for the Medical Office in !TE were used to estimate the trip generation for all non-hospital land uses. '1 TABLE 3.3-4 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATING CONDITIONS ; Intersection Control Peak Type Hour 1. Highway 79 J 1-15 SB Ramps Signal AM PM 2. Highway 79 J 1-15 NB Ramps Signal AM PM 3. Highway 79/la Paz $t Signal AM PM 4. Highway 79 J Pechanga Pkwy Signal AM PM 5. Highway 79 J Jedediah Smith Rd Signal AM PM 6. Highway 79/ Avenida De Missiones Signal AM PM 7. Highway 79 J Country Glen Wy Signal AM PM 6. Highway 79 J Redhawk Pkwy I Margarita Rd Signal AM PM 9. Highway 79 J Butterfield Stage Rd Signal AM PM 10. De Portola Rd J Margarila Rd Signal AM PM _I 1 U n G Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per \/Elhicle b. Level of Service. SOURCE: Unscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital TraffIC Impact Report, 2007. c c 3.3.7 Trip Generation [' L [ ~ Existing Delay" LOSb 32.2 C 37.5 D t2.0 B 34.0 C 13.3 B 27.4 C 23.3 C 73.9 E 10.5 B 15,6 B 6.4 A 7.6 A 5.0 A 10.1 B 26.4 C 32.1 C 16.8 B 20.2 C 13.9 B 16.4 B SIGNAUZED DELAYILOS THRESHOLDS Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A i0.ita 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 0 55.1 to 80.0 E :> 80.1 F Project Phase I Trip Generation The Project Phase I development (170 bed hospital and 80,000 square feet of medical office) is calculated to generate 6,290 ADT with 474 trips during the AM peak hour (350 inbound / 124 outbound) and 629 trips during the PM peak hour (214 inbound /415 outbound trips). I n [i r Temeo.lIa Regional Hospital FIR8l SupPlemental~, ""..."."....Jllmpact Report 3.3-9 ESA I 0207434 Januay 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-5 EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS Street Segment existing Roadway Class . Capacl!t AnT. VlC' LOS. (LOSE) Hlohwav 79 Weslofl-15 4-ln Major Rd 34.100 t9,7oo 0.578 A l-t5 to Pechanga Pkwy 6-Ln Urban Rd 53,900 77,600 1.440 F Pechanga Pkwy to Margartla Rd 6-Ln Urban Rd 53,900 39,000 0.724 C Margarita Rd to Butterfaeld Stage Rd 6-Ln Urban Rd 53.900 34,200 0.635 B Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 4-ln Major Rd 34,100 42,900 1.258 F Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 12,800 0.375 A South of Highway 79 4-Ln Major Rd 34,tOO 13,300 0.390 A De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2-Ln Collector 13,000 8,000 0.615 B Margarita Road I Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Road to De Portola Road 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 17.700 0.493 A De Portola Road to Highway 79 4-ln Major Rd 34,100 26,200 0.730 C South of Highway 79 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 25,200 0.702 C Footnotes: 8. Roadway cla......;.:......u_.. detennlned based on existing cross-sectiorls. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of October 2007 UG study). c. Average Daly Tralftc Volumes. d. Volume I Capacity ratio e. leveJ of Service. SOURCE: Unscon law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital TraffIC Impact Report. 2007. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Therefore, the project traffic generation was defined in two phases. Table 3.3-6 tabulates the Phase I and total project traffic generation. Project Phase II Trip Generation The Project Phase II development (Ultimate build-out - 320-bed hospital, 140,000 square-foot of medical office, a 10,000 square-foot cancer rehabilitation center and an 8,000 square-foot rehabilitation and physical therapy center) and is calculated to generate 5,820 ADT with 437 trips during the AM peak hour (324 inbound 1113 outbound) and 582 trips during the PM peak hour (197 inbound I 385 outbound trips). T emewla RegIonal Hospital Final Supplemental Environmentallmpad Report 3.3-10 ESA I 0207434 ........,2008 ~..^"... ~".., \;;",..,."""", - - ii,,;...'......; ....."",.",j - b,_._~ ~w.,...:.o ..."-- .~ l..--~ i............,.. .3. Environmental SettlM. Imoacts. and MltiaaUon Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3.6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - TOTAL TRIPS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dally Trip Ends (ADT) . I Land Use Quantity %of Volume %of In: Out Volume ADT In : Out Split ADT Split Rate Volume In Out Total In Out Total Phase I Hospital 170 Beds 20 IBed' 3,400 8% 70 30 190 82 272 10% 40 60 136 204 340 Medical Office 80,000 SF 36,13 IKSF' 2,890 7% 79 21 160 42 202 10% 27 73 78 211 289 Subtote' Phe.. I 6,290 350 124 474 214 415 629 Ph... II Hospltel 150 Beds 20 IBed 3,000 8% 70 30 168 72 240 10% 40 60 120 180 300 Medical Office 60.000 SF 38,13 IKSF 2,170 7% 79 21 120 32 152 10% 27 73 59 158 217 Cancer Rehab Center d 10,000 SF 36.13 IKSF 360 7% 79 21 20 5 25 10% 27 73 10 26 36 Rehab and Phys Therapy d 8,000 SF 36.13 IKSF 290 7% 79 21 16 4 20 10% 27 73 8 21 29 Subtotal Phase II 5,820 324 113 437 197 385 582 Total Project 12,110 674 237 911 411 800 1,211 Footnotes; Trip Ends are one-way traffic movement, either entering or leaving. Brief GuIde of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002, SANDAG ITE Trip Generation Manual, i" Edition. The rates for Medical OffIce in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, "f'h Edition were used since no separate rates are available for this land use, This rate Is very conservative since these uses are expected to generate much lower traffic volumes. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Tem.cul. Re';llonal Ho.plt&l Final Supplemenllll Envlronmenlllllmpact Report 3.3-11 ESAID207434 January200a 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic r Total Trip Generation The entire project at build-out (phase I and Phase II) is calculated to generate 12,110 ADr with 911 trips during the AM peak hour (674 inbound /237 outbound) and 1,211 trips during the PM peak hour (411 inbound / 800 outbound trips). The project proposes a total of three access driveways two onto Highway 79 and one onto De Portola Road, as shown in Figure 2-3. In addition, an onsite circulation system consisting of private drive lanes and parking areas are proposed. Trip Distribution/Assignment The project trip distribution was estimated based on the location of residential neighborhoods, the location of other area hospitals, the site access and the roadway network. A growth rate of 3 percent per year for three years was applied to the existing traffic volumes to estimate Opeoing Year traffic conditions. This constitutes the baseline background traffic. The growth rate was utilized to account for area wide traffic growth. This growth rate of 3 percent per year is estimated, based on the average historical annual growth of traffic along Highway 79 (Appendix D of this SEIR, Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study). Figure 3.3-3 depicts the Opening Year without project traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-4 depicts the project tRp distribution. Figure 3.3-5 depicts the Project Phase 1 traffic volumes, while Figure 3.3-6 depicts the Opening Year with Project Phase I traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-7 depicts the Project Phase II traffic volumes and Figure 3.3-8 depicts the Entire Project (phases I & II) traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-9 depicts the Opening Year with Entire Project (phases 1 & 11) traffic volumes. [ 3.3.8 Cumulative Traffic Volumes Based on discussions with City of Temecula and Riverside County staff, it was determined that 30 area projects have the potential to add cumulative traffic to the study area. Table 3.3-7 provides a brief description of each project that has cumulative considerations. Appendix D of this SEIR and Appendix D of the October 2007 LLG study contains Cumulative Projects Data_ Summary of Cumulative Projects Trips Table 3.3-8 summarizes the individual cumulative project trip generation. As shown in Table 3.3-8, the cumulative projects are calculated to generate a total of 1 17,834 daily trips, with 7,576 trips in the AM peak hour (3,463 inbound and 4,1 13 outbound) and 11,452 trips in the PM peak hour (6,012 inbound and 5,441 outbound). T 8ffieO.I1~ Regional Hospital Final Supplemental ErMronmentallmpact Report 3.3-12 ESA,0207434 Ja....,. 2008 lO't pue SJnoH ~ead V'ld/VW SaWnIO^ :J!lIeJl parOJd In041!M JeaA 6u!uado &-&.& 8Jn61:1 ~€vLOZ . I:U3 IB~uaW9lddns 113lldsOH B]n09W91 usdSUSSJO pUB MBl 'nOOSU!1 :30~nos ""'" 01 !ON o ""'''" ,.....'. .....f....... .... ~ S .... ,'. :: I \..~Ul/ltL'., : .J \. _ISU/EH ': \.=~ IQIIVl'I 'UVA p- '. '. "....' '. ~~ ~ ~~ alO .UOIlOHJ81UI 841 10 UIllOll' '.W"IDA Jno4 ~oed 1ld/1lY - ~oolqPlw UMDIj' (OlUDJl -<110(] .eD.>>AV) JtN - 'S3lON fP'........'" ft'......~ _""l r~"'......, f" '.", !!,,,~ ~~ r':' 'j 1 t-,..,. ",,;,"'" jJ .: ~ ~ ~ _ R'9lonol Trip Dlstrlbutlon ~ iJ~ \ I \ I \ I \ \ SOURCE: linscott, law and Greenspan r-c -- ._~ 79 ~ ~~ ~ V;[J. ....CIl 6 NOllo-acAU! . Temecula Hospital Supplemental EI R . 207434 Figure 3.3-4 Project Traffic Distribution AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT ~ tOr ~"9 ~l- ~~E~ ~ c-.lC');!"'O iCDoe _~>ro ~ \ ~ ()(/) ~.2';;:: - * ilL ca g 2 E t=:t: " '& -Y- ........ ",m " In'" '" alO- .. :s it'::E \ D. ~ _0- . 0 Q- \ :I: .~'::E 1 .. 1i e<C " 0- E -0 1 {'! Cll In 0 0- o' 0 ~ 0- " I j " '. ~ .......,. u ~ , \ ~ Li t:',' S(! 1 , ~a \ .Jl .,...) ~ i! !!\ ;; ~ \;~ ~~- ~~I ~ .........:.........~F:;::--.... .t...... 1"-\ \ ...) '" " ........ \ ~ ~ is ... 11 ~~ li .j ,.. ~ 05 ~E 8..1;; .:s.<=lc: t," ~ ~i it ~ I I 00 u U I U U L \ - f' \ o " ~ o o " ~ <!l -0 o " t ... :g g o ::; W o '" ? o <J) NOTES: - NJr (A..rage Dally Traffic) "'own mldblock - AM/PM peok hour yolumoo ore .hown ot the Int."ectloM 5 (=li:;ml\ ~> ",,<;'0,>. ~7) ~ VJ.lL~c:tl :1011/t115-_"\r' ',.~~l/122I"" ~ I .. ......J>.. '........ NORD< o Nor TO SCALE SOURCE: L1nscOll, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR , 201434 Figure 3.3-6 Opening Year with Project Phase I Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT .lOV pUB SJnOH ~Bad VIId/VIIV SaWnIO^ O!UBJ.lll aSB4d lOafoJd pasodoJd L-C'C lun61:l tf:tLOZ' 1::11318lUew9lddnS IBJ!dsOH 81noew91 iI'laCllJ.QN o HUlON JQgw1l 'JZfA ~ {~: " ....J\\-!:.~ : '..,...iiit1.\'"'"' '$ ~.."" ............ ~~ ~ r~"~"'"': ~ ~ - ~ ~-- . ' ~ g,~ ~~ - \ \ \ I \ \ I I_Mten ow.: " \ ~'!!I uedsuaeJel pus M'81 'uo:)sun :3:Jl:lnOS ,., .... ( . ,J -",.4:' : .v..... ". .u/tot- 'UOQlleIU'IUI 'Ill 10 U",04' IUO ..wnl"^ Jno4 ~oed l'lcl/I'IV - ~OOlqPlw ""04' (olW'l.L .q!llQ .e.....v> .La<I - 'S3JON r""_." r'~'-~-", f""-"~ - E'-'l\~'" f' '., -- "...,.... NOTES: - N1f (Averag' ()Q11y TrGffIe) .hewn mlclblock - ~/pM peak heu. velum.. ere ohewn ct tho Into..octIcn. ..... \ \~.. 23t/144-~ , I , , , , _71/241 " . ,12/40 ~ ~. lO2!1u- ,. ~ .' .' ". ..' SOURCE: Unscott, Law and Greenspan 79 ~ 't~ .....". " ~ VAIL f)l(ClI '. . . ..... ,-', ,: l'''t ,-,S~' ". .~..... 'J . . . . . \ .",./'1,J .: . ' , . . ' . . . . . . . . ....,..".... NORlH o NOTTOsc,ALi - remecule Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-8 Proposed Entire Project (Phase I + Phase II) Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT .., ," ~,. .--~ """"" 1I'i-o,#-I 0;". ". '"~~ ",.,."",,;it ~,;.:~:; "".,.-J _...; '.- ",-","" \"",..-.1 ~"'.~~~v."') NOTES: - N:JT (Averag. Dally Traff1c) .hown mldblock - AlI/P1I peak hour volu,""" ore shown at the Int....cllon. p'P ~~ ......... ~ y.ur. ... _'as/loti. .-: ~1l1ll/1I74_" ,. '.;nf/I22I; a ~ .. .::;. II . ". .,,!..>" ..,.....,. NO"'" o NOT TO SCAlf SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR, 207434 Figure 3.3-9 Opening Year with Entire Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mftigation Measures 3.3 TraffIC The Temecula Senior Care Facility includes a retirement community, congregate care and a medical office. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,214 daily trips, with 128 trips in the;.M peak hour (90 inbound and 38 outbound) and 205 trips in the PM peak hour (79 inbound and 126 outbound.) Temecula Creek Inn is a 500 single-lamify home Subdivision adjacent to the Temecula Creek golf course. The proposed proted:is estimated to generate 4,785 daily trips, with 128 trips in the AM peak hour (94 inbound and 281 outbound) and 205 trips in the PM peak hour (318 inbound and 187 outbound). Tentative Tract Map 30180 includes commerciaL/retan uses located within !he Creekside Plaza development. The t"'''t'............. project is estimated to generate 4,894 daily trips, with 114 trips in the N.A peak hour (70 inbound and 44 outbound) and 450 trips in the PM peak hour (216 inbound and 234 outbound). Commercial Temecula Cree~ includes a hotel and convention cenler. The .......,..........:. project is estimated 10 generate 515 daity Irips, with 29 trips ;n the AJA peak hour (17 inbound and 44 outbound) and 46 trips in the PM peak hour (25 inbound and 21 outbound). The Vail Ranch Towne Center includes office and retail uses. The proposed project is estimated 10 generate 6,036 daily trips, with 426 trips in the AM peak hour (266 inbound and 166 outbound) and 488lrips in the PM peak hour (193 inbound and 295 outbound). Resideniiai- Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 incfudes singte family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated 10 generate 2,326 daily bips, with 182 trips in the AM peak hour (46 inbound and 136 outbound) and 245 tirps in the PM peak hour (158 inbound and 87 outbound). Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 includes single family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,225 daily trips, with 96 trips in the AN peak hour (24 inbound and 72 outbound) and 129 trips in the PM peak hour (83 inbound and 46 outboond). 8. Tentative Tract Map No. 30052-. - -- Residential .-- 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). Pechanga Casino Expansion includes an E.<;-':',_.,:._. of the existing casino. The proposed project is estimated 10 generate 18,000 daily trips. Margarita Canyo"indudes oorrimerciaUretailland uses. The proposed project is estimated to generate 7,909 daily trips, with 184 trips in the AM peak hour(112 inbound and n outbound) and 733 trips in the PM peak hour (352 inbound and 381 outOOund). Rancho Community ChurCh indudes a variety of land uses other than the church including a private 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 5.136daHy hips. with 706 trips in the AM peak hour (462 inbound and 244 outbound) and 410 trips in the PM peak hour (161 inbound and 249 outbound). Residential Wolf Creek proposes single-family detached residential units. The proposed project - _..._-_.. (assumed to be 1,000 dweHing units) is estimated to generate 9,570 daily trips, with 675 trips in the AM peak hour (169 inbound and 506 outbound) and 909 trips in the PM peak hour (572 fnbound and 337 outbound). Morgan Hill includes single-family detached residential units, an Elementary school, and a park. The ,.._..._..._": project is estimated to generate 5,430 daity trips, with 621 bips in the AM peak hour (253 inbound and 368 outbound) and 564 trips in the PM peak hour (338 inbound and 226 outbound). TentitiVeTrad MaP. 241 B8 ~ lndudes 291 apartmenis. The "',..."'..."'..... project is estimated to generate 2.507 daily trips, with 2,507 trips in the 196 AM peak hour (49 inbound and 147 outbound) and 265 trips in the PM peak hour (170 inbound and 95 outbound). Apis Plaza includeS oommerciaJlretaiGisWelI as a fast food restaurant, and a high turnover sit-down restauranl The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,345 daily bips, with 230 trips in the AM peak hour (127 inbound and 103 outbound) and 462 trips in the PM peak hour (230 inbound and 232 outbound). Professiorl~-- Paloma Del Sol Off)Ce Building - inciudes 75,000 square feet of office space. The proposed project is estimated 10 generate 958 daily trips, with 134 trips in the AM peak hour (118 inbound and 16 outbound) and 147lrips in the PM peak hour (25 inbound and 122 outbound). ~Pafk and Ride:-sRaOd L8- paz Ref --- - -.PubllC- A 209 space Park & -Ride facility is- Pianned atthe-nOftheast comer of the Sj:f791 ia paz .__~._".___.____._ __. . __ _ _. _____.. __. _. .!.n~_~cti.2fl:.!h:!~ fa~l.i!Yl~estimated to Qe..nerate approximatelv 543 daily biDS. with 272 trio..! Name/Location 1. SU...._...,:.~Jse-SW corner of Maragrita Rd. and De Portola Rd. 2. Temecula Creek Inn-W of 1-15 3. Tentative Tract Map No, 30180- SE comer of SR 79 and Pedlanga Parkway 4:Temecula Creek-W of 1-15 5. Vail Ranch Town Center-8e'oorner of SR 78 and Redhawk Pkwy 6. Tentative TraclMap No. 29473 7. Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 9. Pechanga Casino Expansion-SW of SR 79/ Pechanga Pkwy intersection 10.Ma~ari~Canyon 11. Rancho Community Church- W of project site 12. Wolf Creek 13. Morgan Hrn-----.. 14. TentaiiveTiaCi-Map-No-:-2418If 15. Apis Plaza 16. Palorn:a Del SoI6ffice Buitding Type of Development Mixed-use Residential Mixed-use Commercial Residential Commercial Mixed-use Institutional Mixed-use Residential Commercial Temewla Regional Hospital Final Supplemental EtMronmenlallmpact Report TABLE 3.3-7 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS UST Description 3.3-20 ESA f 0207434 January 2008 r I 1 1 I I , j " , , ; j 1 i J '1 , .~ ., ,.J 'I J J J 'r , i.k 'l .. "' Description in the AM peak hour (190 inbound and 82 outbound) and 272 trips in the PM peak hour (B2 inbound and 190 ootbounel). Temecula Lane I is a residential d ~ ~...... ":-"" with 96 single-family dwelling units and 332 multi-family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 2,780 dailybips, with 212 trips in the AM peak hour (42 inoound and 170 outbound) and 263 trips in the PM peak hour (172 inbound and 91 outbound). The Roripaugh Ranch SPA is partly constructed. 1,800 single-family dwelling units remain to be constructed in this project. These remaining units arG estimated to generate approximately 14.850 daily trips, with 1,269 trips in the AM peak hour (317 inbound and 952 outbound) and 1,445 trips in the PM peak hour (91 0 inbound and 535 outbound). De Portala Meadows is a residential development with 147 single-family dwelling units and 156 multi-family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 2,420 daUytrips, with 166 trips in the AM peak hour{41 inbound and 145 outbound) and 236 trips in the PM peak hour (153 inbound and 83 outbound). St Thomas of Canterbury is a dlUrdl/....-..,;.......l. This Protect indudes a 30.473 square.foot building. This project is estimated to genemte approximately 682 daily trips. with 111 trips in the AM peak hour (59 inbound and 52 outbound) and 116lrips in the PM peak hour (55 inbound and 61 outbound). Hemmingwayat Redhawk is a residential development with 108 single-family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1.100 daily trips, with 85 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 64 outbound) and 115 trips in the PM peak hour (72 inbound and 43 outbound). Professional Temecula Professional Building Il(PA06-0329) is an 11.595 square-fOOt office development- This project is estimated to generate approximately 254 daily trips. with 33 trips in the AM peak hour (29 inbound and 4 outbound) and 92 trips in the PM peak hour (16 inbound and 76 outbound). Gateway Plaza is a two-storied, 30,573 square-footoffloo de\. ..:~...,..~l. This project is estimated to generate approximately 536 daily trips, with 24 hips in (he AM peak hour (21 inbound and 3 outbound) and 113 trips in the PM peak hour (19 inbound and 94 outbound). Residential - - Redhawk Condos is a residential development with 97 mufti-family dwelling units located at the Peach Tree Street I Deer Hollow Way intersection. This project is estimated to generate approximately 625 daily trips, with 50 trips in the AM peak hour (9 inbound and 41 outbound) and 59 trips in the PM peak hour (40 inbound and 19 outbound). Stratford at Redhawk is a residential development with 106 single family dwelling units. This project is estimated 10 generate approximately 1,120 daily trips, with 84 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 63 outbound) and 115 trips in the PM peak hour (72 inbound and 43 outbound~ BuUerfleld StatiOiiTs-a~f300 -square-foot reiaii-development located off of SR 79 between Mahlon Vail and Sutterliekt Stage Road. This project is estimated to generate approximately 5.535 dally trips. with 130 trips in the AM peak hour (79 inbound and 51 outbound) and 510 trips in the PM peak hour (291 inbound and 219 outbound). 28. De Portola Professional Office~----'Professkinar~--- De Portola Professional OfftcEts is a 38.501 square-foot offiCe development. This project ~-_._- SW comer of Maragrita Rd and De estimated to generate approximately 640 daily trips, with 87 trips in the AM peak hour Portola Rd. (77 inbound and 10 outbound) and 120 trips in the PM peak hour (20 inbound and 100 outbound). Heritage Hotel is a 142-room hotel development v.tth a 5,500 square-foot restaurant. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,760 daily trips, with 85 trips in the AM peak hour (51 inbound and 34 outbound) and 122 t1ips in the PM peak hour (68 inbound and 54 outbound). 30. Halcon de Rojo--NE comer at SR ProfeSSiOnaT- -Hailoon ct8 Rojo is a 65,880-squsre:f00t offiCe c\f)velopment. This project is est1mate<tto 79 and Jedediah Smith Rd. generate approximately 967 daily trips. w;th 134 trips in the AM peak hour (118 inbound and 16 outbound) and 153 trips in the PM peak hour (26 inbound and 127 outbound). Name/Location 18. Temecuta lane l-SW of project site 19. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Area (SPA) 20. De Portota Meadows- E of Redh_ Pkwy 21. SI. Thomas of Canterbury-SE of SR 79 and Awmida de Missione 22. Hemmingway at Redhawk~E of project site on Reclhawk Pkwy 23. Temecula Professional Building II (PA06-0329)-NE comer of Margarita Pkwy and De Portols Rd. 24.-Gateway Plaza-SE comeiO< SR 79 and Avenida De Missione 25. Redhawk Coodos-SE of project site, off Redhawk Pkwy 26. Stratford at Redhawk~E of project site. off Redhawk Pkwy 27. Butterlield Station--SW comer of SR 79 and Butterfield Stage Rd. 29. Heritage HoteJ-NW comer of SR 79 and La Paz St SOURCE: City of TemeoJla Type of Development Residential Mixe<l-use Residential Institutional Residential Commercial ""-Residential - ~ RetSif- Commerdal T emecula Reglonall-bspltal Final Supplemental Environmentallmpacl Repon 3. Environmental Settina. Imoacts. and Mffiaation Measures 3.3 Traffic 3.3-21 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 . ! :l . ;;; . 'li o ~ " ~ c . '" '" . ~ E .; c \j "' ~ . E c 0 ee , ! c.... w'" <"lM ~ " o :I: '" .. .. .. :IE .. .. E " ~ Ob *-< z o ~ W Z W CI IL .,01 ...... ";(1) W.... -,0 IIlW <("'> ....0 a:: IL W > ~ ::> .:;; ::> o ~ " o :I: '" .. .. .. :IE <( . E " "5 ;; 0 > -.... Oc ~c( ;:::- c ~ . ... c W 0. 0:: .... :=:- ;; D ?> 'J . " o .. . :> ... c j .. ;; .... '" '" <> <> '" '" "5 o <0 .... '" co ~ ~ .5 0> co .... ;;; ;; ;; .... co '" '" .... ~ '" co ~ '" ~ .5 <> ... 0> 0> .. E ~ o > ... '" N ~ c.;..; .. 1ii a: .8 ~ " " -' '" "5 N '" W ;; ~ <> c co E t; -" '" " .. 0. we.. 5 0 ~ i ~ ~ E ~ 3 E E c ~ ~ ~ N M p') fD co It) CD (") l'- (") ~CO'<l'~~N~~~ ro m ~ ~ l'- CD ~ ~ m C\lC'\lCOV'<t('l./M ~~~~~~~~~ <> ... <0 .... ...i ~ r:(J)O>~~<ONo>~~ ~.. V N ~ <>> v ~ Qlgj~~~~m~~ ~ l'- l'-- ~ , '" '" CD V ("] OJ N vNNre~ 0> ~ ui "" OCOlO(t)(ClOOO <OCOLOS~~<O ..... CD cO N .... co c <6 g ~ 1ii )!( o ... .. '" (3 N ... '" ~ " .... . c u. g C/) ... 8 o <> ~ ..; ~ M ~ c: ct~g 0 ... N N (<) 'Vi E ci ci ci Ii Q) Z Z Z 0- 00.0.0.)( CI <<l C'O m ~ c .Jl:j~:2:2cg, :1:....00"0010[: 0=; f! tV to IU m o..cl-'='=ou ~ g Q) ttJ GJ l!L ~ U IU .E; ~ .2: c "&:: lDO::S~S~~ E c: ceO 1:;. ~~~~{!r.~ ...t16a:)r--:a:iaiO:: ~ 0> '" ~ 6r-: (C ~ ~ ~ '" <> '" '" ~ ;! ci ci .. '" 0> ~ '" 0> ... <0 '" '" '" '" <> '" ~ 0; <0 ., ~ + ljsz -g Z- oo ;::! N '" ~ ~ E c --' J!J J!J c c .. .. ... ... ~ ~ CiiUS '" '" <> '" ... ... -" l! ~ -" u l: 'E ~ E E c3E" 0"5 -"co go .z a:_ (50 o 0 s= -" u u '" '" .. s= '5 0> 'D :x: ::E MOOVIONl'-NMM ~~8~~~~N~o 1ll0CfDIONNOCOOO l'-~~~C)fJ~mc<")(") COOOOOOCIONNlO ~~~~~~NCO~fD '* 'if!. <> <> ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ '" "'.... '" ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" '" '" .... <0 (")NOMCXll'-roONm (J)~~~"<tN::~ ..... '#. "# .. .. CJ)OOOl'-U) ::!~~~~~ <o:iaioilliNtO 0> <> <> <> 0>'" ,.: co '" :g ~ ~ .... N + X CD!! ~~~ a; 0 g ci:2~ " E c --' Il " 0- '" "' N .... N + X C --' '" 0> o " E c -' .!!l V,I rIJ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ '" . Il " 0- '" 0> <> '" J!J '" :> <0 0> ;rg ~ ii CD ~ E " E a: 0 ;>.0 E~ :. 5 .!! ~ 0> 0 .x ~ U .. e u - (; ;!: 10 N (ij .~ I:. ~ E IX) CJ)~ ~ E ~ c: 'j;j o ..., :E OJ G) o "" :; r-... a:: -g ~ ':~ f ,g 0. 0 ~ <<I .8 ~ 5r.~ "5 ~ ~1iii~ Q) ~ 'DlD..J>" Z:r: ~o-oca c: ~ co m ii '5 It! ~ a: E oe ~ g' c en 0 ~ E ~~~:.s:.~ N ~ M ..j u; cD ,....: o:i "............... ..... ~m ~o ~o ~N 1: ~ O' - ' :i~ w '" '" ~ M t o ~ . oc o . ~ E ]j . _ E . c 0.. ." o c rw iii. c- o c CD~ ~i ~~ E .. . E .. ~. t,..;,,<'.iJ ",. .._"~ "'"'.."" """"'" - ~.. l~__. ..j , -.) ",~""">".>1Il ",.W11 ~ "'--.",J \.. ....,,1 ~ i-......."J .. .""" 3. Envlronme!'ltal S.;lttlnn. Imoads. and Mltloation Measures 3.3 Trafflc TABLE 3.3-8 (CONT.) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Dally Trip Enda (ADT) AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Volume Volume Rate Volume %of In Out Total %of In Out Total ADT ADT Multi-Family Raaldentlal 332 Units Ln (T)=0.85Ln(X)+2.55 1.780 23 112 135 107 53 160 19. Roripaugh Ranch SPA 1,800 Units Ln (T)=0.92LN(X)+2.71 14.850 317 952 1269 910 535 1,445 20. De Portola Meadow. Single Family Residential 147 Units Ln (T)=0.92LN(X)+2.71 1,480 28 84 112 95 55 150 Multi-Family Rasidential 156 Units Ln (T)=0.85Ln(X)+2.55 940 13 61 74 58 28 88 21. St Thomas of Canterbury 682 59 52 111 55 61 116 22. Hemmlngway at ~edhawk 108 Unils Ln (T)=0.92LN(X)+2.71 1,100 21 64 85 72 43 115 23. Temeeula Professional Build1ng It 11.595 SF Ln (T)=0.77Ln(X)+3.65 254 29 4 33 16 76 92 (PA06-0329) 24. Gateway Plaza 30,573 SF Ln (T)=0.77Ln(X)+3.65 536 21 3 24 19 94 113 25. Redhawk Condos 97 Units Ln (T)=0.85Ln(X)+2.55 625 9 41 50 40 19 59 26. Stratford at Redhawk 106 Units Ln (T)=0.92LN(X)+2.71 1,120 21 63 84 72 43 115 27. BuUarfleld Station (Ratail) 73,000 SF Ln (T)=0.65Ln(X)+5.83 5.535 79 51 130 291 219 510 28. De Portola Professlona! Offices 38,501 SF Ln (T)=0.77Ln(X)+3.65 840 77 10 87 20 100 120 29. Heritage Hotel Hotel 142 Rooms 8.92/Room 1.270 47 34 81 7.49 40 41 81 Restaurant 5,500 SF 89.95/KSF' 490 0.81 4 0 4 7.49 28 13 41 30. Haleon de Raja 65.880 SF Ln (T)=0.77Ln(X)+3.65 967 118 16 134 26 127 153 Total Project 117,834 3,463 4,113 7,576 6,012 5,441 11,452 Footnote: Only the portions of projeCts that are yet to be built that were under construdlon at the time the traffic counts were conducted are included In the above list. SOURCE: Linscott law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic impact Report, 2007. Temewla Regional HOlp1ta1 final Supplementel Envlmnmen181lmpect Report 3.3-23 ESA/0207434 January200B ,",,,,,....Il ~.,.,..j 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 33Trafflc I Figure 3.3-10 depicts the cumulative projects locations, while Figure 33-11 depicts total Cumulative Projects traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-12 depicts the Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects traffic volumes. 3.3.9 Analysis of Near-Term Scenarios Project Opening Day without Project Project Opening day traffic conditions, without project, represents existing traffic volumes with a growth of 3 percent per year for three years added. Intersection Analysis Table 33-9 summarizes the Opening Day intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-9, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: . SR 79 atl-15 SBRamps . SR79 at 1-15 NBRamps . SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway Intersection . SR 79 at La Paz Street Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix E of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year without Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. SegrnentOperations [ Table 33-10 summarizes the Opening Year traffic conditions for the street segment operations, without project. As seen in Table 3.3-10, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: . SR 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway . Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Project Opening Day with Project Phase I Project opening day with Project Phase I represents Project Opening Day traffic volumes with the addition of Project Phase I traffic volumes. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-9 summarizes the opening day with Project Phase I intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-9, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of Project Phase I traffic except the following: Cumulative Impact . SR79atI-15SBRamps . SR 79 at 1-15 NB Ramps . SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway Intersection . SR 79 at La Paz Street T emecuIa Regional Hospital Fil'lal Supplemental.:;, .. _,,~ . Impact Report 3.3-24 ESA J 0207434 January 2008 ~ .~.. t'';;'~;;J ...,,,,::;;a __ _ "., L ,J l_.~.,.:J ~~ ~ ~...u,J ~~~._~.., .~ :......._.." ~ ~ b..,........;iIl .....~<-"~.J Cumulallve ProJect location. CD a..,~._~ o r__JO'IIt1~ @---~ @J-'-/ @Do__ @.._ot_ @' 11".,tIt~ @r_",...,,_ ~~- @-""'*'" 8-..- @-- 8 De I'WfoIa 1\( . .r cmc.. 8_- @_Do_ SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan \@ I \ \ I I \ I , 79 ..~ @J ~ ~ v.w.~c1l @ @8 NOR1N o NOTTOSCALE Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-10 Cumulative Projects Locations NOTES: - NJT (Average Dally Trafflc) ehown mldblock - AM/PM peak hour volum.. a.. shown at the t ',.;.,....Sionl ..' ~ ~~ .......... ;it' V.A!L j1tIclI 6 _no/7'l)l " rm/N. : :"~:w." "II i .:' ". .,.: . ." '...,..... ..' ..,.... f1tEV. 10/18/07 N:\1751~\W017!2 ~ NOm>< o NOT TO lOCALE SOURCE: Unseott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental ErA. 207434 Figure 3.3-11 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT t;:~"."":~ ~-;;~ III"c."" - ~ L. ..m4 ~,:.:,;;;; = ~ ~. ~~ ~; ...J ~~",.,.,.J ~~ "",,..;ji ~,;jl ....J NOTES: - NJT ("verag. Dally Traffic) .hown mldblock - AM/I'N peak hour ..rUIn., ora shown at tho Interaectlon, ?~ ~~ ~l1' ~ -oj) " 'l; ......-. _1.S18/'''..' r lUlU' : :,'M1/2t21_ "'" r "011/214:2, I ~ . . "..' ". .:. ..' '. 11:$.' ....,.......,..' ~O ""i;'OJ: ~O .' ,....... ... '. V~~ '" ,.' REV, 10/19/07 N:\1752\'utClCAD\t.LCt17S2 fltll.... NOlI1H @ NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan . Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3,3-12 Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3. Enll1ronmental SettlnQ. Impacts. and Mftlgauon Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3.9 PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Peak Existing Type Hour Ooley' LOSb 1. Highway7911.15 58 Ramps Signal AM 32.2 C PM 37.5 D 2. HI9hway 79/1.15 N8 Remps Signal AM 12.0 8 PM 34.0 C 3. Highway 79/ La Paz St Signal AM 13.3 8 PM 27.4 C 4. Highway 791 Pechanga Pkwy Signal AM 23.3 C PM 73.9 E 5. Highway 79/ Jedediah Smith Rd Signal AM 10.5 B PM 15.6 B 6. Highway 79/ Avenlda De Mlsslones Signai AM 6.4 A PM 7.6 A 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal AM 5.0 A PM 10.1 8 8. Highway 79/ Redhawk Pkwy I Margarita Rd Signal AM 28.4 C PM 32.1 C 9. Highway 79/8utterfleld Staga Rd Signal AM 18.8 8 PM 20.2 C 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd SIgnal AM 13.9 8 PM 18.4 8 Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay In seconds per vehIcle b. Level or Service. c. tJ. denotes an increase In delay due to project. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital FInal Supplemental Envlronmentallmplct Report 3.3-28 ProJoct Opening Day Project Opening Day 6 Without Project With Project Phase I Delay I' Impact Type Delay. LOS' Delay. LOS' 40.6 D 46.1 D 5.5 None 56.9 E 58.2 E 1.3 Cumulative 13.3 B 14.4 B 1.1 None 56.7 E 59.1 E 2.4 Cumulative 16.3 8 16.6 B 0.3 None 58.5 E 61.2 D 2.7 Cumulative 26.6 C 27.8 C 1.2 None 109.7 F 114.3 F 4.6 Cumulative 11.0 B 11.2 B 0.2 None 17.2 B 17.3 B 0.1 None 6.7 A 8.2 A 1.5 None 8.7 A 9.9 A 1.2 None 5.2 A 26.6 C 21.4 None 11.1 B 24.0 C 12.9 None 30.8 C 33.8 C 3.0 None 34.9 C 37.1 D 2.2 None 20.0 B 20.4 C None 22.8 C 24.1 C None 14.0 B 14.3 B None 21.4 C 22.1 C None SIGNALIZED Delay L08 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.110 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E ESA I 0207.'34 Janulry2008 h.....,~- ,,,j .j.,~ -- ...... ...,.,..~,...; L....._... (~~-~-; Io.-.iIl ...... "-"'* /;,."N.'.....,,;,) .~_."T~"~ ;....".~ ~ ......... _.,.~_."J 3. Environmental Settlna. Imoacts. and Mltlaation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-10 PROJECT OPENING DAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS Existing Roadway Capaclt~ exIstIng Project Opening Day Project Opening Day " Impact Street Segment Without Project With Project Phase I Class' (LOSE) VlC' Type ADTc VlC' LOS' ADT' VlC' LOS' ADTC VIed LOS' Highway 79 West of 1-15 4-Ln Maj Art 34,100 19,700 0.578 A 21.470 0.630 B 21,660 0.635 B 0.006 None 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6-Ln Prin Art 53.900 77,600 1.440 F 84,580 1.569 F 86.470 1.804 F 0.035 Cumulative Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6-Ln Prin Art 53.900 39,000 0.724 C 42,510 0.789 C 45,780 0.849 D 0.061 None Margarita Rd 10 Butterfield Stage Rd 6-Ln Prin Art 53,900 34,200 0.835 B 37.280 0.892 B 38,480 0.714 C 0.022 None Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 4-Ln Maj Art 34,100 42.900 1.258 F 46.780 1.371 F 47,070 1,380 F 0.009 Cumulative Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 4-Ln Maj Art 34.100 12.800 0.375 A 13,950 0.409 A 14,450 0.424 A 0.015 None South of Highway 79 4.Ln Maj Art 34,100 13.300 0.390 A 14,500 0.425 A 15,130 0.444 A 0.018 None De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2.Ln Col 13.000 8.000 0.615 B 8,720 0.671 B 9.350 0.719 C 0.048 None Margarita Road / Redhewk Parkway Jededlah Smith Rd to De Portola Rd 4-Ln MaJ Art 34,100 17.700 0.493 A 19.290 0.537 A 20,230 0.564 A 0.026 None De Portola Rd to Highway 79 4.Ln MaJ Art 34,100 26,200 0.730 C 28,560 0.796 C 29,500 0.822 0 0.026 None South of Highway 79 4-Ln Ma) Art 34,100 25,200 0.702 C 27,470 0.785 C 28.100 0.783 C 0.018 None Footnotes: a, Roadway classification determined based on existing cro$S-sectlons, b. Roadway CapaCIties based on Riverside County Roadway Classlflcatlon Table (see Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. d. Volume I Capacity ratio e. Level of Service. f. Increase In VIe ratio. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Reglona' Hospital Final Supplemental Envlronmentallmpaet Report 3.3-29 ESA/0207434 January 2008 SOO~N8nU8r K"LO~af\fS3 oe-e'e ~Od8'ij \08dWII811.18WUOJ/^U3 18jU8W81ddnS 18Ul:I (VlldtOH 18UOI6e'ij 811'DeW8.1. ~ VOS < 3 O'OS 01 ~ 'SS a O'SS 01 ~ 'S, 0 O'S, 01 ~ 'o~ a O'O~ 01 ~'o~ '.LOOZ '~ode~ lOBdw] ~W8JJ.lei!daOH 18uolB&}J 81n09w91 'usdsU9eJD pus M.e, nooaUI1 :3:>~nOS ... O'O~ > 0'0 SOl .(8/8Q '~9rQ.ld 01 enp .(slap UI SSlJ9JOU) lle selOuap V " '901Al9S JO ,SNit' .. Q3Zn'tN!lIS 91014eJ. Jed spuo~e8 UI .(lJlep e68J9^B lenUlJt\I ~1~lJdlJO ^8M401l"1 '. :r~ouloo~ a ,'St eUON n 0 n~ 0 ~'~~ ~d 0 9"€~ 9UON g'o a n~ a €'t~ Wo' IBu61S p~ eweBJB~ I P'tl Blo)Jod 9Q 'O~ a S'L€ euoN ~'O 0 €.t~ 0 ~.t~ ~d 0 a, 9UON S'O 0 S'O~ 0 t'O~ ~... 'BulliS P~ 0681S PIOIJ.lOnna f SL ^OM461H 'S ~ a-t9Z euoN 9'Z a 9'S€ a ~'L€ ~d ~ L'SH euoN S'Z a 9'9, 0 S'€€ ~... ,Bu6,S P~ BIIJe6JB~ I ^'^~d ~MB4PBl,J ISL ^BM4SIH 'S ~ 9.tt~ euoN I'O~ 0 ~'\>l: 0 o.t~ ~d 3 ,'LL euoN n 0 S'Z~ 0 n~ ~... leu61S /..M U91E;> ^nunoo 16L /..eM1I61H 'L ~ ,'9S 9UON n a n~ ... S'S ~d a S'~~ eUON ~'O ... ,'S ... ~'S ~... ,Bu6IS S8UOlsslt\! ea BP!U9Mt 16L J..UM1I6!H '9 ~ 9',~~ euoN t.o a L"L~ a ,'H ~d 0 L'O, 9uoN ~. ~ a ,'~~ a n~ ~... IBuBIS p~ 41lUJS 4BIPBpBr ISL ^BM461H 'S ~ n~s 8^!lelnWno S'O ~ ~'S~~ ~ n~~ ~d ~ O'S~~ E1uON n 0 ,'S~ 0 s'a ~... ,Bu6IS ^^",d 06UB4'Bd f SL ^BM461H 't ~ S'S~, 8^IlB[nWno 9"€ 3 0'99 a ns ~d ~ 9',9~ euoN €'O a S'9~ a 9'91 ~... IBU61S IS ZOd B, 16L ^....46'H " ~ Z'8S~ 8^IIBlnWnO O.t 3 ~',9 3 ~'SS ~d ~ S'08 euoN ~'O 8 g't~ 8 v'v~ ~... IsuBIS 6dwe~ aN S~~1/6L ,{sM40lH .~ ~ nz~ 9^!lelnWno n 3 L'~9 3 Z"89 ~d ~ S'~~~ 8uON 0', a ~'St a r9t ~... lou61S SdUJB~ as 9 ~ -IISL ^BM461H . ~ ,SOl ,.<BIOO ,SOl 8.(II'Q ,SOl "<B\Oa .~'(OJd od^.L l'Iedwl ~.(.I'Q l,efOJd "'/lU3 411M I 8S811d t:J8rOJd I.n1M JnoH ed'(.L UOIl:J'~8JUI 8^IJ8Inwn:) 't JOe(OJcI 8JIJu3 V ^eo BUluedo l'IefOJd ,110 Bu,uodO loe[oJd >lead IOJJUo:.l 411M ^BO Bu,uodO l'Ie[OJd SNOI.L'lnl3dO NOI.L03Sl:l3.LNI S.L03rOl:ld 3^I.LYlnWno ON'" .L03rOl:ld 3l:lI.LN3 H-&'& 31Sn 01Jl.8U €'€ SQmsse~ UO!18I!lm~ pus 's~edWI '/SUllies I~UeWUOJI^U3 '€ r;;..,.') ~.. 4..,,,;:'< - &;,..,;. , 1..... .. l~ .,,~ h-~ &:C:-Ji ~..,w~ ;;"C.."~'.J l................J ~ ........ 0.....,.; 3. En....ironmental SettlncJ, lmoacts, and Mltl(1stlon Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-12 ENTIRE PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SEGMENT OPERATIONS Existing Project Opening Day Project Opening Day Project Opening Cay With Cspscl!X " Impact Entire ProJec:t and Impact Street Segment Roadway With Project i:Jh... f With Entire Project V/C' Type Cumulative Projects Type CIa.. . (LOSE) ADTt vie' LOS' AOTe Vied LOS' AOTe V/C' LOS' Highway 79 West of 1-15 4-Ln MaJ Art 34,100 21,660 0.635 B 21.830 0.640 B 0.005 None 32.490 0.953 E Cumulative 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy 8-Ln Prln Art 53,900 86,470 1.604 F 88.220 1.637 F 0.032 Cumulative 123,340 2.288 F Cumulative Peohanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 8-Ln Prtn Art 53,900 45.780 0.849 D 48,810 0.906 E 0.058 Direct 82,480 1.530 F Cumulative Margartta Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6-Ln Prtn Art 53,900 38.480 0.714 C 39.590 0.735 C 0.021 None 59.880 1.111 F Cumulative Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 4.Ln Maj Art 34,100 47,070 1.380 F 47.360 1.389 F 0.009 None 70,Q10 2.053 F Cumulative Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 4.Ln MaJ Art 34,100 14.450 0.424 A 14.920 0.438 A 0.014 None 23,100 0.677 B None South of Highway 79 4-Ln Maj Art 34,100 15.130 0.444 A 15.710 0.461 A 0.017 None 25,960 0.761 C None De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2-Ln Col 13,000 9,350 0.719 C 9,930 0.764 C 0.045 None 11,660 0,897 D None Margartta Road I Redhaw\< Parkway Jededlah Smith Rd to De Portola Rd 4-Ln Maj Art 35,900 20,230 0.564 A 21.100 0.588 A 0.024 None 26,060 0.726 C None De Portola Rd to Highway 79 4-Lo MaJ Art 35,900 29,500 0.822 D 30,370 0.846 D 0.024 None 37,690 1.050 F Cumulative South of Highway 79 4-Ln Maj Art 35.900 28,100 0.783 C 28,680 0.799 C 0.016 None 38.540 1.074 F Cumulative Footnotes: .. Roadway classification assumed based on existing cross-sectlons. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study). ,. Average Dally Traffic Volumes. d. Volume I Capacity ratio .. Level of Service, f. Increase In VlC ratio SOURCE: LInscott Law and Greenspan, Temecuta Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report. 2007. T emercu/a Regional Hospltsl Supplamen\81 Envlronmenlallmpact Report 3.3-31 ESA I 0207434 October 2007 Preliminary - Subject to Relll.Jon 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix F of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year with Project Phase I peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-10 summarizes the opening day with Project Phase I street segment operations. As seen in Table 3.3-10, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: Cumulative Impact . SR 79 between 1-15 and PechangaParkway . Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Project Opening Day with Entire Project (Phases I & II) Project opening day traffic condition, with the entire project, represents opening day with the addition of traffic volumes generated by the entire project. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-11 summarizes the Opening Day with the Entire Project intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-11, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following:, Cumulative Impact . SR 7911-15 SB Ramps (LOS E during the PM peak hour) . SR 7911-15 NB Ramps (LOS E during the PM peak hour) . SR 79 / La Paz Street (LOS E during the PM peak hour) . SR 79/ Pechanga Parkway (LOS F during the PM peak hour) Appendix D of this SElR (Appendix G of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year with the Entire Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-12 summarizes the street segment operations for the Opening Day with the Entire Project As seen in Table 3.3-12, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following; . SR 79 from 1-15 to Pechanga Parkway . SR 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road . Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 T emecuIa RBgIonal Hospital Final Supplemenlall Envimnmenlallmpad Rep:Irt 3.3-32 ESA/02Q7434 J.....-y2008 " 1 j 3. Environmental Settil'lCL Imnacts. and Mitiaation Measures 3.3 Traffic 1 1 Project Opening Day with Entire Project & Cumulative Projects Project Opening day traffic conditions, with the entire project and cumulative projects, represents opening day with entire project traffic volumes as well as cumulative project traffic volumes. 1 j Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-11 summarizes the Project Opening day with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects peak hour intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-11, all study area intersections continue to operate at poor LOS conditions except the following: --'1 Cumulative Impact . SR 79/ Butterfield Stage Rd . De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix H ofthe October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year With the Entire Project and Cumulative Projects peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. j J Segment Operations Table 3.3-12 summarizes the Project Opening day with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects street segment operations. As seen in Table 3.3-12, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at a poor LOS except the following: 1 j I Cumulative Impact . Butterfield Stage north of SR 79 . Butterfield Stage south of SR 79 . De Portola Road west of Margarita Road . Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 . Redhawk Parkway from south of Highway 79 1 j -, 3.3.10 Analysis of Long-Term Scenarios Build-out (Year 2025) Traffic Volumes 1 The City of Temecula build-out volumes were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Update Circulation Element Traffic Study dated December 2004. It may be noted that the Build- out (Year 2025) network assumes a new traffic interchange at 1-15, south of Highway 79 and a new road termed the Eastern Bypass, which will extend from 1-15 to Borel Road. This new circulation option will significantly reduce traffic volumes on the parallel portion of Highway 79. This facility was not included in the cumulative impact analysis because it would not be constructed for many years, and thus is not reasonably foreseeable within the horizon studied for cumulative impacts. J I I If j A copy of the Build-out (Year 2025) volumes is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix I of the October 2007 LLG study). Tf!tl'IllOJla Regional HospIIaI Filial $..,pplemental ErMronmentallmpact Report 3.3-33 ESA I 0207434 ........2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.JTraffic The following methodology was utilized to estimate peak hour intersection volumes. Peak hour intersection turning movement volumes were estimated using a template in EXCEL developed by LLG. Future peak hour traffic volumes at an intersection are determined based on the relationship between existing peak hour turn movement and ADT volumes and the future ADT volumes. This same relationship can be assumed to generally continue in the future without the Eastern Bypass. This relationship will likely change once the Eastern Bypass is buill. The traffic study included analysis of build -out peak hour intersection volumes both with and without the Eastern Bypass. Figure 3.3-13 depicts the forecasted Build-out peak hour segment ADT volumes. Build-out (Year 2025) Intersection Geometry All funded CIP improvements are assumed as the base geometry for the Year 2025 analysis as follows. The full list of funded CIP projects are included in Table 3.3-15. . 1-15/ Highway 79 (South) interchange - Route 79 South at Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Improvements . Route 79 South Re-striping from 6 to 8 lanes - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway . Route 79 South at Pechanga Parkway - Intersection Improvements - Dual Right Turn Lanes - Route 79 east to Pechanga Parkway south . Route 79 SouthlMargarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination - Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road Build-out (Year 2025) Analysis The intersection and segment operations at build-out (with the Eastern Bypass) are compared to the existing + entire project + cumulative projects (with the existing network, and Eastern Bypass), in order to determine the improvement in intersection and segment operations with the Eastern Bypass. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-13 summarizes the build-out (Year 2025) peak hour intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-13, at build-out (with the Eastern Bypass), all study area intersections are calculated to operate at better levels of service and much lower delays than for the existing + project + cumulative projects (without the Eastern Bypass) (Figure 3.3-13). Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix I of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Bnild-out (Year 2025 with Eastern By-Pass) peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-14 summarizes the build-out street segment operations. It may be noted that the build- out segment analysis assumes the City of Temecula Circulation Element network. As seen in Table 3.3-14, all study area street segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better conditions except the following: Temea.daRagionalHospltaI Fmal Supplemental Environfl'lef1la1lmpact Report 3.3-34 ESAJ 0207434 """""2008 ,j ~t l 1 ,j 3. Environmental $ettina. lmoacts. and Milioation Measures 3.3 TraffIC ., J . Highway 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road (LOS E) . Highway 79 from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road (LOS E) It may be noted that at build-out (with the Eastern Bypass), all Study Area segments are calculated to operate at better levels of service than for the existing + project + cumulative projects (without the Eastern Bypass scenario). J ~ ~ -; It may be noted that the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element assumes a two-lane facility (one lane in each direction) for the Eastern Bypass. The volumes used in this analysis assume this two-lane cross-section. However, the Riverside County TUMF Program is planning to build the Eastern Bypass as a four-lane facility (two lanes in each direction). Therefore, if the Eastern Bypass were to be built as a four-lane facility, it would attract more traffic and the segment volumes and consequently, the intersection volumes along Highway 79 are expected to be lower than that used in this analysis. Thus, with a four-lane Eastern Bypass facility, the intersections and segments are expected to operate better than with a two-lane Eastern Bypass facility. 1 'J J 3.3.11 Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts 'l J Based on the established significance criteria, the following significant impacts were calculated. Two direct impacts were calculated since project traffic caused the LOS to decrease from an acceptable LOS D to LOS E. Cumulative impacts were calculated at locations that already operate at LOS E or F without project traffic or locations where unacceptable levels of service occur only with the addition of cumulative projects traffic. '1 J Direct Impact (Phase" only) Impact 3.3-1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road- This is a direct impact since with the addition of Project Phase n traffic this segment deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E. '1 '1 J Impact 3.3-2: Highway 79/ Country Glen Way (Project Driveway) - This is a direct impact since this intersection is the main project driveway and the project is responsible for providing the north leg of this intersection which does not exist currently and will serve as the project access. 1 , j j ~ ~ -~ ; "' ~ ;'j: Temecuta Regional HospItal F1I1aI.:-". . ..JI: allmpadReport 3.3-35 ESA I 0207434 J""""Y2008 eOOZNenU8r VCI1,LOZOI VS3 3 0'08 01 ~ 'SS 0 0'" 01 rSE :;) O'SE 01 ~ 'O~ a O'O~ 01 ~'O~ V O'O~ > 0'0 SOl ~'I.a pezllBu61S s'aH :;) n~ ~'S H a ~'~~ E'9 H 0 ~'VI> nH :;) ~'S~ S"l>8~ H 3 S'SL E'9Sl H :;) ~'Z~ n~~H :;) nE S'~~ (-) 0 ~'SE 6'99 H V ~'g E'S (-) V 9'E ~'90~ H a ~'S~ n~(-) v S'9 s'LL~H 0 E'SE O',O~ (-j a O'O~ 9'S6~ (-) :;) L'Zl, n,~(-) v L"9 ng~H :;) E'EE ~'9L (-) V S'~ O'EO~ H :;) n~ ~'~O~ \-/ a L"S~ ,SOl ~'IOQ .pU008S UI ~'Ioa V ("'d-~ll W81"3 411M) SZOZJ"A '-.~-- 9€-€'€ ~d8'cll:lldWIIll'\U&WUOJ,^U3 IIilueW81ddns IIUI:! 19l1di()HIIlUOjB8~'8lro8UJ'1 '.loot 'j.Jode~ lOEdw] OIJjBJ.1.ISndsOH l'Su0l6el:j Sln~wel 'usdsueeJ8 pus .....Bl ijOOSUll :3:>~mos 'pe[OJd 01 80p '<'BIElP ul eSBeJOUr us 9810uep V '0 '8oWes ,10 181\81 'q ElIOILlaA Jed SPU(Y.)8S UI '<slep e6WElAS lsnu.VII A1!oede:> '<'8ML/6!H 'S :S810Ul002 0 E'S~ r-ld IBUfllS :;) 9'E~ r-lV PllOWo6JOr-l1 PllOIO~Od 00 'O~ 0 S'LE r-ld leu6lS Pll 0681S PIOJllOUna ISL 'OM46IH :;) HE r-lV 's ~ O'~g~ r-ld 19u6lS Pll ol~o6JOr-l1 MI~d ljM04POllI 6L 'OM46!H ~ L'9L~ r-lV '9 ~ g'~~~ r-ld 18U6!S AM uelO Alluno:> f6L A8M46!H 3 nL r-lV 'L ~ E',S r-ld 18U6!S a S'~~ r-lV seu01SS!VI1 ea ePIU9^\1' 16L ~eM461H 'g ~ S'E~~ r-ld 18u6!S :;) L'OE r-lV p~ 41!WS 4B!PBper 16L AeM461H ., ~ ~'HS r-ld reu6lS MIltd o6uo400d I 6L ~OM46IH .~ ~ O',~~ r-lV ~ ,'9~E r-ld lou6jS ~ 9'E9~ r-lV IS zed .., ISL 'OM46!H 'E ~ ~'9S~ r-ld IBU6!S ,dwOll aN , ~ -II SL ~OM46IH , S'OS r-lV .~ ~ E'~~~ r-ld leu6!s ,dwollaS g~-" 6L ~OM46!H '1 ; n~~ r-lV ,SOl ~'I.a ("'d-~8 WOlS03 ON) JnOH >lIed ed};.LIOJIUO:) uOlloelJe,u, 8l0erOJd 8Allllnwn:) + 1:J8rOJd 8JIlU3 + fJullslx3 SNOI.l.VH3dO NOI.l.:l3SH3.1.NI (SZOZ l/\l3Al.l.no-CllnS E~.E'E 318\1.1. OUJBJ.,LE:'€ semseew UO!1B511!V11 pus 'spBdwl 'tiU1119S jSlUeWUOJIAU3 'E: f" .:~ 1lO;:c'OI 1<1'= r.." ...~"~<..,,,;I ~ t:;::::::J ,____..J 1::~::;:J ~:.::3 IIC:II , ,,'J :- _::::J ~ r:::J - K;;;;;;;jl t:.,__.J ...J ::I." F,rvlronmental SettlnQ, Impactll,, ~,n~ Mltl?~~I2!!. Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-14 BUILO-QUT (YEAR 2025) SEGMENT OPERATIONS Existing + Entire Project + Cumulative Projects Vear 2025 (No Eastern By-Pass) (WIth e..tern By-Pass) Segment Roadway LOSE Volume C VlCd LOS' Roadway CIlia' LOSE Volume C VlCd LOS' Class' Capacity b Capacity b SR.79 West of 1-15 4-Ln Ma) Art 34,100 32.490 0.953 E 4-Ln Ma) Art 34.100 9,000 0.264 A 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6-Ln Prin Art 53,900 106.520 2_013 F 8-Ln Urban Art 71.800 59.000 0.822 D Pechanga Pkwy to Margerita Rd 6-Ln Prin Art 53,900 82,260 1-526 F 6-Ln Principal Art 53,900 51,000 0.946 E Margarita Rd to BuUarfleld Stage Rd 6-Ln Prin Art 53.900 50.070 0.929 E 6-Ln Principal Art 53,900 50,000 0.928 E Pechanga Parkway South of SR-79 4-Ln Mal Art 34.100 68,700 2_015 F 6~Ln Principal Art 53.900 29,000 0_538 A Buttarfleld Staga Rood North of SR-79 4-Ln Ma) Art 34,100 23,100 0.677 B 4-Ln Ma) Art 34,100 19,000 0.557 A South of SR-79 4~Ln MBj Art 34,100 25,960 0.761 C 4-Ln Maj Nt 34,100 20,000 0.587 A De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2-Ln Col 13,000 10,890 0_838 D 4-Ln Col 25,900 11,000 0_425 A Margartta Road I Redhawk Parkway Jedadlah Smith Rd to De Portola Rd 4-Ln Maj Art 35,900 26,060 0.726 C 4-Ln Ma) Nt 34,100 11.000 0.306 A Da Portola Rd to Highway 79 4-Ln Mal Art 35,900 36.180 t.007 F 4-Ln Me) Art 34,100 23,000 0.641 B South of Highway 79 4-Ln Ma) Nt 35,900 38,540 1.074 F 4-Ln Ma) Nt 34,100 27,000 0.752 C Footnotes: a. City of Temecula Roadway Classification b. RiversIde County Roadway Capacity c. Volume City of Teme<:ula General Plan Update, Circulation Element Traffic Study. d. Volume I Capacity ratio SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecule Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. TemltCIJI8 Reg~ar Hospital Flnel Supplemenlal Envlronmentallmpact Report 3.3-37 ESAf0207434 January200a NOTES: - MiT (Avera9. Dally Traffic) .hawn mldblack - Nol/PM peak haur voIum.. are shawn at the Intaraactlonl ~\9 \~~ ..' ~ ~~ .....".. ..' 4 VAIL ... ....... r~"= \ ~ './1810_ "'\ f' '._-' 8~ ....... i i "...,..... ~eoo ~ ...,........ .' NO"," @ NOT TO ""'" SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 . Figure 3.3-13 BUlld-oul (Year 2025) wilh Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT ~ 3. Environmental Settil'l('l. Imoacts. and Milklation Measures 3.3 TraffIC Cumulative Impacts Intersections 'j i l Impact 3.3-3: SR 79 / 1-15 SB Ramps Impact 3.3-4: SR 79 / 1-15 NB Ramps Impact 3.3-5: SR 79 / La paz St Impact 3.3-6: SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Impact 3.3-7: SR 79 /Iedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 / A venida De Missiones; SR 79 /Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road Impact 3.3-8: SR 79 / A venida De Missiones Impact 3.3-9: SR 79 / Country Glen Way Impact 3.3-10: SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd 1 j 1 j ~ Segments Impact 3.3-11: SR 79 West ofI-15 Impact 3.3-12: SR 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway Impact 3.3-13: SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road Impact 3.3-14: SR 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road Impact 3.3-15: Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Impact 3.3-16: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 Impact 3.3-17: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 " J J City of Temecula - Regional Transportation Facility Mitigation Program The City of Temecula requires that identified direct project-related traffic impacts are mitigated and funded directly by the project applicant. Direct project-related mitigation measures required to mitigate project impacts will be implemented with construction of the Phase 1 improvements. ~ Ii -1 In addition, the City of Temecula implements a comprehensive transportation system Capital Improvement Program (CIP) designed to address cumulative regional traffic impacts. The CIP has been designed to ensure that the regional circulation system as depicted in the Temecula General Plan Circulation Element is constructed to provide an acceptable level of service as development occurs. Funding for the regional circulation improvements identified in the CIP is derived from a variety of sources including City of Temecula Development Impact Fees (DIF), Assessment Districts (AD), the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Community Facilities Districts (CFD), federal and state matching funds (SAFETEA-LU) and special legislative improvement districts (SB 621). The CIP prioritizes the funding, design and construction of individual transportation improvement projects to coincide with the commensurate level of service of roadway segments and intersections to adequately serve existing and future development. All of the CIP projects that provide for mitigation of regional cumulative traffic impacts have identified 100 percent of the funding required to construct the I 'f , l:ii :..< r~ [c' ~ T emet:uIa Regional Hosp/lal FInal Sopplemental Erwjronmentallmpad Report 3.3-39 ESAJD207434 January 2006 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic proposed improvement. Many of the CIP projects are currently 100 percent funded and the transportation portion ofthe DIF fee for this project have the effect of reimbursing the improvement fund for funds advanced for the impacted facilities, and thus will be applied to other regional CIP projects. All of the above referenced documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. The following sections describe the transportation facility improvement funding programs. The CIP sheets are documented in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix J of the October 2007 LLG study). City of Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF) Development Impact Fees (DIF) are collected to fund a portion of the new infrastructure that is needed to provide services to new development. Transportation improvements are the largest portion of the mF fees. mF fees are charged when: . Construction permits are issued in a fee area or, in the case of water and wastewater, when the development ties into City services; . A new use, such as a new structure or expanded structure, is requested; . A change to a more intense use is requested; . A property adds new water or sewer service; . Additional Drainage Fixture Units are added to an existing structure; . Impact fees are based on the type of land use being developed, the building area, gross site area, water meter sizes and the drainage fixture characteristics of the proposed development. . The amount charged for impact fees is based on the estimated demand the development wilJ place on City services and the estimated taxes the new development will generate pay for new infrastructure. The current DIF for the proposed project is $4.75/square-foot for office land uses and $5.66/square-foot for service cornmercialland uses. The proposed project will pay $3,077,065 in current mF fees. DIF fees are adjusted on a regular basis to keep pace with construction costs and inflation and are payable at building permit, so the amount actually paid could be more than under the current rates. Documentation regarding the adoption and implementation of the DIF program are included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix K of the October 2007 LLG study). Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program The County of Riverside and the Cities of Western Riverside County enacted the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The purpose of the TUMF program is to provide a supplemental revenue stream to support the shortfall from traditional funding sources for regional transportation facilities (Figure 3.3-14). The TUMF program funds the mitigation of traffic impacts from new development on the regional system of Highways and arterials. TemaculaRggional~ Final $uppemental~. '. ' .,,,.aI1rnpact Report 3.3-40 ESA I 0207434 Janua<y 2008 J;.~,":-~ 'Ik...~ - ~: , LIIHND '\ .~Ir'lWItcllon~1I . ...... lallroadCroQIn81 el-u.mOOOpetlane .,.$1.7llO.000perlanfl InterchClftOfl .1.$."'.c.ooo . f~1n.'~ .'3-$IUIO.OOO :4"J2.ADO.OOO , "-.$U1O.oao lI'AppIOV<<fll'^lfan1l1Cenler .-- @tctc,"~int.rchanojj\l ......1liIftfJi-.. Ultlmdl:NulIlbtr:Of 4M1 ,~"'**.. . ~t.rit- ~.~..;. ;ir~.iI~i';',~ ....""t@:~A~~;~a{~:'~''.l''-;#'. . So\Irce: WY<<X>>. """"" 2007 N:\1~l!VWoCAD\u.c17!52 Raurn - -.. ~,,~...il L._~_,.,..J 1-_.''''''''','4 ~ - 1;,..""," ,",_._,.".,,",, L._ ,,"".J :..,,~,~...~;J ~ ......... ..-.--" ~ ,....~ The Southwest TUMF Zone Transportation Improvement Program Projects -t VI . SOURCE: LInscott, Law and Greenspan ,. Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIA . 207434 Figure 3.3-14 TUMF Facilities 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts. and Mitiga(iQn Measures 3.3 Traffic The TUMF program also ensures that new developments pay their fair share towards providing the needed regional infrastructure improvements. TUMF fees can only be used to mitigate the impacts of new development on the network of roads, bridges, interchanges and intersection that are identified under the TUMF program. The TUMF program involves development of policies, identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates and fee scenarios. However, it should be noted that the mitigation fees collected through the TUMF program can be utilized only towards the capital costs of facilities and not for operation or maintenance costs. r The fee calculations are based on the proportional allocation of the costs of proposed transportation improvements based on the cumulative transportation system impacts of different types of new developments. Fees are directly related to the forecast rate of growth and trip generation characteristics of different categories of new development. The TUMF program collects fees by the following land use categories: . Single family residential . Multi-family residential . Industrial . Retail . Service commercial The current TUMF Fee for the proposed project is $5.71/square-foot for office land uses and $5.71/square-foot for service commercial land uses. Under the current TUMF fee structure, the proposed project would have to contribute $3,232,774 in current TUMF fees. TUMF fees are adjusted on a semi-annual basis, and are payable at building permit, thus the amount actually paid could be more than the current fees. Figure 3.3-14 depicts the TUMF facilities in the County. Documentation regarding the TUMF program is attached as Appendix 0 of this SEIR (Appendix L of the October 2007 LLG study). Assessment Districts / Community Facilities Districts Assessment Districts (AD) and Community Facilities Districts (CFD) are special districts formed by a local government agency (County, City, Water District, etc.) that include property that would receive direct benefit from the construction of new public improvements or from the maintenance of existing public improvements. The proposed project is located with Assessment District 159 (AD 159), which encumbers a large area east ofI-15 and north and south of Route 79 south (Figure 3.3-15). The applicant has been paying assessment district fees for many years and will continue to do so until the assessment district is retired. The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Route 79 south from two lanes to six lanes, between 1-15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the TerJ'leQ.JlaRegionalHospital Final SL.l~1aI Envirorvnenlat Impact Report 3.3-42 ESA I 0201434 J"""'Y2006 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,:-:~] r.... ..::J ;;:;:::;::;;;; ~ ~ ~..._..J r...........J \ 4: MORENO ~ "\ -':ORCO ~D..\ w". ''''' """ MUtI.....~ ~ "" 401" \. - C~""t liE-MaT Dialumd ....11l0' ,... "'" El.~ ,/' \."""...........,il iM..4 - ~.~.; """'" @ NOT 10 SCALE SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3-15 Riverside County Assessment Districts ..... RIVERSIDE COUKTY ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY FACILmES DISTRICTS LEGEND c=J. COUNTY LINES - FREEWAY/HIGHWA,Y DISlRICT _ AD 1&9 _AD161 ~. AD IllS _ CFOO3-1 _ CFOQ4-2 _CF005-, _CFOO6-ll _ CFO 86.2R _ CF088-1 _ CFD 87.' CFD 87.6 _CFDll6-4 _ CFD 88-8 ~ CFD89.' _ CFO 89-4 ~ \ 07-1 Z1 c:=J 07.' Z2 c:::J 07-' Z3 01w1 Z4 c:::J 01.' Z5 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, regional transportation improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project are included in CroWD Hill CFD and the Morgan Hill CFD. The local agency that forms the assessment district sells bonds to raise the money to build or acquire the public improvement. The agency then levies a special assessment against each parcel ofland within the district, in proportion to its share of benefit from the improvement. Factors that determine the amount of benefit received may include the size of the lot or the proximity to the improvement being fmanced. The special assessment is payable through annual installments over the life of the bond issue, which is typically 15 to 20 years, but may be as many as 40 years depending on the terms of the bond issue. The owners of the assessed land repay the bonds through annual assessments, which are included on the County's general property tax bill. Documentation regarding the AD is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix M of the LLG study). Federal, State and Special Legislative Funding Mechanisms In addition to DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs and ADs, Federal and State matching funds (SAFETEA-LU and SB 621 - Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund) are available for use in funding regional circulation system improvements. Planned Regional Circulation System Improvements In addition to the regional circulation facilities currently programmed into the City ofTemecula CIP, TUMF, assessment districts and/or community facilities districts, there are several regional transportation facilities that are in the planning stages that have not yet been incorporated into any of the transportation planning/funding documents to date. The Eastern Bypass is a planned future regional transportation facility connecting 1-15, south of Highway 79 South and Borel RoadlWashington Street in the northeastern section of the City. This regional transportation facility will provide for significant traffic relief along Route 79, southern Pechanga Parkway and the entire circulation system within the vicinity of the project. This facility will be called Deer Hollow Way, between 1-15 and midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. To the east of the previous section, this facility will be called Anza Road up to its terminus with Borel Road. This facility will include a new interchange at 1-15, to be located south of Highway 79 South, which is approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) at a preliminary cost of $47,840,000. The Deer Hollow Way section of the Eastern Bypass is planned to be a six-lane divided principal arterial from 1-15 to Rainbow Canyon Road and a four-lane major arterial from Rainbow Canyon Road to midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This roadway section is also approved by RCTC. The Anza Road Section of the Eastern Bypass is planned to be a four-lane Undivided Secondary Arterial from Midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road to Butterfield Stage Road and a two-lane Undivided Rural Highway between Butterfield Stage Road and Borel Road. Since the Eastern Bypass (a regional transportation facility) has not been funded or programmed into the City of Temecula CIP or the TUMF program, it has not been I (- Temecula RegIonal Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-44 ESA I D207~34 _"", 200e I I i 3. Environmental SettillQ. Impacts. and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic incorporated into the ultimate circulation system expected to be in place at build-out of the proposed project. Analysis of the year 2025 traffic conditions, including the Eastern Bypass, and discussed in Section 3.3.10, and show that all area intersections and segments will operate at acceptable levels of service in 2025, with the exception of the following: j . Highway 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road (LOS E) . Highway 79 from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road (LOS E) Based upon this analysis, cumulative traffic impacts can be considered temporary until such time as the Eastern Bypass is built and operational. Once the Eastern Bypass project is constructed, levels of service along all project impacted roadway segments and intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the above outlined segments, which are slightly over the significance threshold. 1 1 j I The projects I improvements listed in Table 3.3-15 are already planned separate from the proposed project. If these projects I improvements listed in Table 3.3-15 are completed by others, the project's fee payments will addresses its own impacts. J ] If, however, the improvements are not completed by others, the hospital must complete those improvements before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, and could get reimbursed for a portion of the costs, thus ensuring that the improvements will be in place prior to the hospital opening up. It may be noted that: 1 . . As compared to the existing transportation system, the proposed project will have the impacts identified above. . Thcre are a series of planned improvements that will be completed by others in the next few years (Table 3.3-15). 1 --. , , j . With completion of all of these improvements (and the project specific improvements as discussed for access points to the hospital site - i.e. the project specific impact mitigations), the project's impacts will be less than significant, the project is still obligated to pay its DIF and TUMF fees in order to pay its fair share of the improvement costs (which are in effect being fronted by DIF and TUMF). In the event these improvements are not completed before the hospital opens (except for the interchange, which must be substantially undelWay), there is a potentially significant impact. That residual impact is mitigated by requiring the bospital to complete the improvements before receiving a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City. J Direct Impacts The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be substantially under construction prior to issuance of any encroachment permit for project access to Highway 79 South or De Portola Road. Encroachment permits shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially undelWay, as determined by the Director of Public Works. I l' J :] ;J ., T emewIa Regiooal Hospital Final Supplemental Enviroom8fltallmpact Report 3.3-45 ESA I 0207434 _2006 --' 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-15 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT MITIGATION MEASURE SUMMARY Traffic Improvement Current Status Funding Source I Status CIP Reference Priority 1. Route 79 South Widening ~ Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Completed Assessment District 159 OIF Not a Part of CIP Completed Road I 2, Route 79 South Re~striplng from 6 to 8 (anes ~ Interstate 15 to Design Approved Construct DIF-$161.250 210-165-676 CIP-I Pechenga Parkway 2007 - 2008 3. Route 79 South Median Construction - Interstate 15 to In Design Construct DIF - $190,000 210-165-622 CIP-II Butterfleld Stage Roed 2007 - 2008 4. Route 79 South at Butterfield Stage Road - lnlersectlon Completed by Private Private Developer Not a Part of CIP Completed Modification I Development 5. Route 79 South at Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange In Design Construct in 2011 CDF (Crown Hill) - $502,210 21 0-165-662 CIP-I Improvements CFD (Morgan Hili) - $1.190,582 SB 621 Funding - $$14,960,925 SAFTEA-LU - $1.600.000 TUMF - 6,000,000 Total Cost - $22,560,925 6. Route 79 South at Pechanga Parkway - Intersection In Design Construct in 5B 612 Funding - $425.000 210-165.637 CIP-I Improvements - Dual Right Tum Lanes - Route 79 east to 2007 - 2008 Pechenga Parkway south 7. Route 79 SouthlMargarlta Road Traffic Signal Coordlnatlon- In Design Construct DIF - Traffic Signals 210-165-712 CIP-I Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road 2007-2008 Portion of $2.575,000 8. Route 79 SouthlMargarlta Road Traffic SIgnal Coordlnatlon- In Design Construct DIF - Traffic Slgnels - $345,000 210-165-712 CIP-I Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road - Fiber optics 2007-2008 9. Route 79 South CCTV Traffic Monitoring System In Design, Construct in SB 621 - $395,000 210-185-635 CIP-I 2010-2011 10. Pechenga Parkway Improvements Between Pechanga In DesIgn - Construct DIF Fees, CFD - Wolf Creek 210-1650668 CIP-I Parkway Bridge and Via Eduardo 2007 - 2001 Public Lands and Highways Program Pechanga Tribe Contribution Rancho California Water District 1 1. Eastern By-Pass (Future) In Plennlng $47.500,000 - Prelimina/)' Estlmete N/A Will reduce cumulative traffic impacts when constructed Footnotes: a. These Improvements have been completed and are assumed as the existing condItions and are not part of the recommended mitigation measures. SOURCE: City orTemecuta Temecul1 Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Envlronmentellmpact Report 3.3-46 ESA/D207434 January 2008 ~-- 1 3. Environmental SettinQ. Impacts. and MitiQation Measures 3.3 TraffIC Mitigation Measures ; j Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Traffic Signal Coordination - SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination - Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road". The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula building permit. Should the entire CIP funding not be in place at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase lA, the applicant shall fund the traffic signal coordination and establish a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula to be reimbursed for expenditures made on behalf of the city. However, at this time, the CIP calls for completion of the improvement in the Year 2008. l Site Access and On-Site Circulation l oj In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, the project proposes three access driveways, two on SR 79 and one on De Portola Road. The following improvements shall be completed prior to issuance ofa certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City of Temecula in order to mitigate impacts of the new access driveways, to existing facilities: 1 Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: .-~ . Driveway #1 on SR 79: Driveway #1 on SR 79 is the fourth (north) leg of the SR 79/ Country Glen Way. This intersection is currently a signalized T-intersection. Modification of the current signal has already been completed to accommodate the fourth leg serving the project site and other related changes to geometry. The project shall provide the following additional intersection geometry: o A dedicated westbound right-turn lane on SR 79, o Dual eastbound left-turn lanes on SR 79, and dual left-turn lanes and a shared through! right-turn lane in the southbound direction exiting the project site. . Driveway #2 on SR 79: Driveway #2 on SR 79 shall be located at the west boundary of the property and will provide unsignalized right inlright-out only access. This 40-foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. \ . Driveway #3 on De Portola Road: Driveway #3 on De Portola Road will provide unsignalized right-in / right-out and left-in only access. Left-turns out of the hospital shall be prolnbited. This 40-foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. . The hospital and other related buildings are located approximately in the center of the site, surrounded by parking. An adequate internal roadway system shall be provided to access each facility and to provide adequate parking. '1 ~ i ii ~ i ~ IT Cumulative Impacts The project shall participate in the funding and implementation of regional circulation system improvements through payment of established City of Temecula DIF fees, participation in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) Program and continued ~., L ,. , L Temecula Regiooal HospItal FIOlIl Supplemental ErwIronmentalln1Jact Repo.1 3.3-47 ESA/0207434 January 2008 3. En........, ,....,..,...1 Setting, Impacts. and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic participation in Assessment District (AD 159) financing. These fees are collected as part of funding mechanisms aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected development and population increases. The regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Additional funding sources have been identified for several of the regional transportation facilities (see Table 3.3-15). All available mitigation measures required to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts are summarized in Table 3.3-15 and documented following the table. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be acquired.. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. As discussed above, implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Intersections The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. The following improvement has been completed since the traffic counts were assessed for this study and is not considered a measure to mitigate the impacts of this project: . State Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road: The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Route 79 south from 2 lanes to 6 lanes, between Interstate 15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the vicinity of the proposed project. Also, completion of the planned improvements through the federal, state and special legislative funding mechanisms as mitigation for the identified project impacts shall be concluded upon certification of occupancy for Phase IB, which consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising QI'I'.V',imately 162,650 square feet and a six-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. However, with the exception of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3, and 3.3-4, the obligation to complete these planned improvements will transfer from the previously stated funding Temec:wa Regional HospIlaI FInalSupplementak_. I,. "".,,;al Impact Report 3.3-48 ESA I 0207434 """"'2008 , 3. Environmental SattiM. ImDacts. and Mitiaation Measures 3.3 TralflC mechanisms to the hospital if in fact the improvements are not completed by before an issuance of a certification of occupancy for Phase IA. Mitigation Measures 1 J Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: SR 79 / 1-15 Southbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15/ State Route 79 South Interchange" (public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment pemtit for the project. It J .. , ~ :l Note: Funding is secured through mF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds and construction is expected in 2011. i i -. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: SR 79 / 1-15 Northbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15/ State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. -, ;.J a Note: Funding is secured through OIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds, and construction is expected in 2011. [I Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, require coordination with Caltrans and are found to be infeasible because ultimately they are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the City of T emecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. f'! ~ s bJ: , Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: SR 79 / La paz St City ofTemecula CIP entitled "Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway", which will add a fourth through lane in each direction on SR 79 through La Paz Street shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. Ifnot completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. .-! '-' ., : ~ cl Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, and construction is expected to occur in 2008. i Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Intersection of SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula CIP entitled "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway - Dual Right- Turn Lanes", which will add a second eastbound right-turn lane on SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. ~ IT r-" ~ ' ~_o T emecula Regionall-biplta! Flflal Supplemental ElNironmentallmpad Report 3.3-49 ESA, D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program and SB 621 Funds, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: SR 79 / Jedediab Smith Rd; SR 79 / A venida De Missiones; SR 79 / Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road City ofTemecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination - Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road" shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. This project will improve the signal coordination along SR 79, including the SR 79/ Jedediab Smith Road, SR 79 / A venida De Missiones and SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road intersections, which will improve traffic flow through these intersections. In addition, the project shall construct lane geometry improvements and modify the existing traffic signal at the main project driveway, prior to project operation. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Segments SR 79 West ofI-15 The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 will also mitigate this impact. The improvements to the interchange will greatly improve traffic flow on this segment of SR 79. SR 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 will also mitigate this impact. Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road; Highway 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road The mitigation measures listed for Impact 3.3-7 will also mitigate this impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 City of Temecula CIP for fiscal Years 2007-2011 entitled "Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase II" - Public Works Account No. 210.165.668, shall be completed prior to the City's issuance ofa certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: This project will add the third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions. Funding is secured through DIF fees, CFD (Wolf Creek), Public Lands and Highway Program, Pechanga Tribe contrIbutions and Rancho California Water District funding, and construction is scheduled between 2007 and 201 I. Temewla Regional Hospital Fmal Supplemental EnvIronmenlallmpact Report 3.3-50 ESA I 0207434 J......,,2OO8 3. Environmental Settioo. Imoacts. and Mitiaation Measures 3.3 Traffic Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements along this segment. implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula OIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula encroachment permit. Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the right of way along this segment. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. ~ No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less-than-signiflcant level, essentially "eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening" the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if thelead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be included in the record of project approval. .~$ ;. j ,j 1 J Resulting Levels of Service following implementation of all available mitigation measures for all project area intersection and roadway segments are shown in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 respectively. As seen in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17, all of the identified segments and intersections, with the exception of Route 79 South 11-15 Northbound ramps (AM) and the Route 79 South /Country Glenn Way (AM) intersection will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service, following completion of all feasible mitigation measures, although the mitigation will in most cases substantially decrease the amount of delay that would otherwise be experienced. These cumulative traffic impacts are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts, until ff rl' tJ IT t ~ ii p L ~ Temecula Regional Hosp/lat FmaI Supplemental.::.. .,w"..,~".allmpact Report 3.3-51 ESA I 0207-434 January 2008 3. Environmentai Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic such time as the Eastern Bypass is constructed, which would provide substantial relief to the regional circulation system. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix N of the LLG study) contains the Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects analysis with the implementation of all mitigation measures. TABLE 3.3-16 EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES Control Peak WIthout Mitigation With MltigaCion .. .:.._",... ~::~J1 Type Hour Delay" LOSe Delay" LOSe 1. Highway 79/1-15 S6 Ramps Signal AM 12t.9 F 84.5 F PM 224.3 F 160.9 F 2, Highway 79/1-15 N6 Ramps Signal AM 80.9 F 19.0 6 PM 298.2 F 70.4 E 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St Signal AM t63.6 F 40.7 D PM 318.5 F 86.9 F 4. Highway 79/ Pechanga Pkwy Signal AM 125.0 F 1t2.5 F PM 517.2 F 365.6 F 5. Highway 79/ Jedediah Smith Rd Signal PM t23.5 F 75.3 E 6. Highway 791 Avenida De Missiones Signal PM 95.0 F 60.6 E 7. Highway 79/ Country Glen Wy Signal AM 77.3 E 15.7 6 PM 244.6 F 131.5 F 8. Highway 79/ Redhawk Pkwy I Margarita Rd Signal AM 178.0 F 142.5 F PM 264.0 F 212,5 F Footnotes: a. Mitigation does not Indude the planned Eastern By-Pass. b. Highway Capacity P.4anual average delay In seoonds per vehicle c. Level of service SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan. Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. T emecula Regional HospllaI Final Supplemental E _ i1lmpact Report 3.3-52 ESA I 0207434 J......,,2008 ~ 1i;..,..;;I c:;:;::ll ~ ~ r:::.::~:; 4.... ..:1 C~',:~:;:.J &;;;.;;lI ~ Ih-,;:;.;l ~....~. .J ,--,___.il ~......;.d - ~,. ':nvJronmental Bettina, Impacts, and Mitlaatlon Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3-17 ENTIRE PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SEGMENT OPERATIONS - WITH MITIGATION Existing LOSE Without Mitigation Mltlgoted LOS E With Mitigation Segment Roadway Class' Capacity . Roadway Cia.. . Capacity . Volc V/C' LOS' Volc V/C' LOS' Highway 78 ' West of 1-15 4-Ln Major Art 34,100 32,490 0.953 E 4-Ln Major Art 34.100 32,490 0.953 E 1-15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6-Ln Urban Art 53,900 123,340 2.268 F 8-Ln Urben Art 71,800 123,340 1.718 F Pechenga Pkwy to Margerita Rd 6-Ln Urban Art 53,900 82,480 1.530 F 6-Ln Urban Art 53,900 82,480 1.530 F Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd B-Ln Urban Art 53,900 59,880 1.111 F 6-Ln Urban Art 53,900 59.880 1.111 F Pechanga Parkway South of Hwy 79 4-Ln Major Art 34,100 70,010 2.053 F B-Ln Urban Art 53,900 70.010 1.299 F Margarita Road I Redhawk Parkway De Portola Rd to Hwy 79 4-Ln Major Art 35,900 37,690 1.050 F 4-Ln Major Art 35.900 37.690 1.050 F South of Hwy 79 4-Ln Major Art 35,900 38,540 1.074 F 4-Ln Major Art 35.900 38,540 1.074 F Footnotes: a. Roadway classification assumed based on existing cross-sections. b. Roadway CapaCities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see AppendIx B of the October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Dally Traffic Volumes. d. Volume I Capacity ratio e. Level; of Service. f. One CIP project plans to re-stripe the segment from 1-15 to Pechenga Parkway from the current Six-lane Principal Arterial to an Eight-lane Urban Arterial. However, a second CIP project Includes the Installation of equipment to provide signal coordination from West of 1-15 to Margarita Road. While It Is not possible to quantify the benefit to the segment operations, all Intersections In this corridor are calculated to operate a lower delays than prior to coordination. The roadway capacity Is a City standard. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report. 2007. Temecula Regional HOIpjtal Final Supplemental Erwlronmentallmpllct Report 3.3-53 ESA/D207434 January200S ~.1 -.,..,....,..,J I 1 1 CHAPTER 4 Project Alternatives -, I This chapter summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the original EIR and evaluates a newly identified alternative site. 1 J 4.1 Approach to Analysis 1 1 Additional alternatives or alternative site analysis was not mandated by the Superior Court judgment or Writ of Mandate, however, between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection ofDiaz Road and Denoy Parkway could accommodate the proposed project land uses and is now being evaluated as the seventh alternative to the proposed project. The project site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City of Temecula, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. l ~ it. UI , f 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed , , The following discussion summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the original EIR. 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 15l26.6[f]). -, .~) >-;1 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-tenn, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts; . Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights; sirens and construction; and . Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. All other impacts will be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. ., ,I U I I I o T~RegionaIHospital Final Supplemental EnYlroomentallmpad Rvport 4-1 ESA , 0207434 January 2008 n 4. Project Alternatives The following project alternatives were examined in the Original Draft EIR: 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 De Portola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, the Construction of Hospital Only Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative in the Original EIR. r 4.3 Selection and Rationale for Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on the following project objectives: City Objectives: The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: . Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City ofTemecula; . Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; . Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; . Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; . Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and . Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Objectives of the Applicant: The objectives of Universal Health Services (UHS), 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; T emewIa Regiooal HospItal FI03I Supplemental: .. , 1I tmpact Report 4-2 ESA I 0207434 January 2006 4. Project Mematives 1 ; j . Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and I . Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. 1 4.4 Former Temecula Education Center Alternative (New Alternative No.7) '1 1 I I j Between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. 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 (Guidelines Section 15126.6 (2)). 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. , j J The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection ofDiaz Road and Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek could accommodate the proposed land uses and is now being evaluated as the seventh alternative to the proposed project. The site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. The former Temecula Education Center site was previously submitted to the City as an education complex, including an education center, a research and development/conference center, a day care facility, retail facilities, apartment units and associated parking. The alternative site location is shown in Figure 4-1. The Temecula Education center project has been withdrawn from further consideration by the City and is available for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the proposed project. J " \ j -r j Access to the project site is via Diaz Road, via either Rancho Califomia Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include open space to the north, Murrieta Creek and open space to the east, business park /warehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. The potential impacts of this alternative site are described below. J This alternative site, similar to the proposed project site, 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 y.vyv.oJ project would be implemented. I ~ i l' .f J T emeaJ1a Regional Hospital FinalS_~~__,..l.=." L_. ".,,_.lmpactReport 4-3 ESA I 0207434 J.....,,2008 ... ~.jJ A,"..ll f.? ! I I TEMECUlA dPOl ..# MURRIETA 4.-.,..~....___~... SOURCE: RBF Consulting Temecula Hospital Supplemental EtA, 207434 Figure 4.1 Alternative Site 4.ProjectAltematives 1 l Aesthetics 1 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 business park development, surface mining and the Santa Rosa estate residential and agricultural area to the west. There is commercial development to the east along Jefferson Avenue within the jurisdiction of the City and wastewater effluent ponds to the north within the City ofMurriela. As with the proposed project, Alternative 7 would result in development of the entire site with the uses proposed, and with hospital bed towers of five and six 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 Regnlations (Ordinance 655). J J '1 r There are no scenic highways in the project vicinity and there are none designated as 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. Views of the Santa Rosa Plateau, a prominent regional visual feature throughout the region could be obstructed by the proposed project from proximal vantage points. Given the visual setting of this alternative site, the y.~y~.ed project at this location could have the potential to result in significant aesthetic impacts. "I j 1 j 1 f~ Agricultural Resources 1 ~}; The project site is not located within any identified agricultural general plan designation or zoning and the site is not identified in the City's General Plan as Farmland of Local Importance. Therefore, Alternative 7 would not result in a significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources. Air Quality -, I .J The proposed project will result in emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NO.), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) in excess of SCAQMD thresholds, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 7 involves the same level of development and thus would not avoid significant and unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts. Under this alternative, ROO emissions would remain at 224 lbslday, and NO. emissions would remain at 216 Ibslday (due largely to the application of architectural coatings). Construction vehicle exhaust would continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold; like the proposed project, Alternative 7 would have an unavoidable significant adverse construction impact related to air quality. Like the proposed project, at operation, Alternative 7 would result in pollutant emissions in excess of the SCAQMD emissions thresholds for ROG, with a total of941bslday and a total of 1,I44lbslday of CO emissions during operations. Therefore, like the proposed project, Alternative 7 would have an unavoidable, significant operational air quality impact. J ~ ti rr u f' l.:- " T emew1a Regionlll Hospital Antll Supplemental E II knpact Report 4-5 ESA f 0207434 -... 2008 4. Project ARematives Biological Resources The project site has been previously graded as part of the surrounding business park and the site is devoid of any vegetation and/or habitat value. 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 ifmitigatiou is required per the Califomia Burrowing Owl Consortium's Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. The Riverside County MSHCP des not identify the project site as being included within any criteria cells. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar insignificant impacts to biological resources as the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality Sintilar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 7 would result in an increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. The sites location adjacent to Murrieta Creek could subject the area to flooding during lOO-year storm events. Under Alternative 7, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the RQWCB, which outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to reduce stormwater pollution. With compliance of the existing regnlations, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Hazards This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Unlike the proposed site, there are no existing gasoline service stations located in the immediate vicinity. As such, the potential impacts to soil or groundwater from USTs is not likely to occur at this alternative location. Therefore, the opportunity for VOCs or MTBE to leak into the environment at this alternative site from gasoline service stations or USTs would likely not exist. Impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed project Land Use and Planning The existing General Plan Land Use designation for Alternative 7 is Public Institutional Facility and surrounding areas within the City ofTemecula are designated Industrial Park. Existing site zoning is Planned Development Overlay-PDO -10. Under this alternative, as with the proposed project, a CUP would be required for the 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regnlations require CUPs for such uses in the Community Commercial zone. A height variance would also be required to allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for the hospital towers. Additionally, use of the site for a hospital would require a General Plan Amendment and zone change. As previously mentioned, 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 business park and open space land uses. As described above in T em&CU1a Regional Hospital final 51.... .. - El'lViroomentallmpad Report 4-6 ESA I 0207434 January 2006 4. Project Mematives " I i '. 1 }' j 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. Therefore, Alternative 7 has the potential to result in increased adverse land use compatibility impacts. I I I Noise -, ! Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 7 would result in comparable development, and the total traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would be similar. This alternative may necessitate slightly shorter helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, and could result in a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods than the flight paths associated with the project. Estate residential land uses to the west in the Santa Rosa Plateau area would be impacted by flight operations. Therefore, this alternative could have a reduced 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 location of single-family homes in the surrounding area to the west. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be potentially less than those associated with the project. '1 j J ~ lj Transportation Under Alternative 7, project trip generation would be greater as that associated with the proposed project. LLG Engineers conducted a Build-out (Year 2025) segment analysis of roadways potentially impacted by Alternative 7 (refer to Appendix D). The build-out segment volumes were obtained from the City ofTemecula General Plan Update Circulation Element Traffic Study dated December 2004. All planned network (CIP) improvements are assumed to be implemented and the City street network is assumed to be built to the planned Circulation Element Classification. The proposed Alternative 7 was added to these segments and the build-out plus project traffic volumes were determined. Table 4-1 summarizes the without and with project Build-out segment volumes. As seen in Table 4-1, the segment of Winchester Road from Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue is calculated to operate at LOS F with Alternative 7. The segment of Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Avenue and Overland Drive is calculated to operate at LOS F, both without and with Alternative 7 traffic. These would represent significant impacts requiring mitigation. 1 .i .J '1 , j Conclusion J Alternative 7 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be less than the proposed project due to slightly shorter helicopter trips and the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Traffic impacts would be slightly worse. 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 outside of using the actual site as currently proposed. ~ ~ 1 r .i Temewla Reg;i0081 Ho&pitlII Finill Supplemenlal EnvIrootl*ltallmpad Repott 4-7 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 4. Project Altematlves TABLE 4.1 ALTERNATIVE 7 BUILD.OUT SEGMENT OPERATIONS Existing Roadway LOSE Bulld-out Without Project Bulld-out With Prolect Segment Clsas- Capaclly , V/CA Volume C VlC' LOS' Volume G V/C' LOS' Winchester Road Dlaz Rd to Jefferson Ave 4-Ln Major Rd 34.100 29,000 0.850 D 40,140 1.177 F 0.327 Jefferson Ave to 1~15 8-Ln Urban Art 71,800 45.000 0.827 B 55.540 0.774 C 0.147 Rancho CalifornIa Road Diaz Rd to Jefferson Ave 6-Ln Urban Rd 53,900 18,000 0.334 A 18,360 0.341 A 0.007 Jefferson Ave to 1.15 B-Ln Urban Art 71,800 39,000 0.543 A 39,970 0.557 A 0.014 Jefferson Ave North of Winchester Rd 6-Ln Principal Art 53.900 26,000 0.482 A 26,610 0.494 A 0.011 Winchester Rd to Overland Dr 4-Ln Major Rd 34.100 38,000 1.114 F 38,610 1.132 F 0.018 Overland Dr to Rancho Califomia Rd 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 28,000 0.a21 0 28,610 0.839 0 0.018 Dlaz Road North of Winchester Rd 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 15,000 0.440 A 26,500 0.777 C 0.337 Winchester Rd to Overland Dr 4.Ln Major Rd 34,100 23,000 0.674 B 23,360 0.885 B 0.011 Overland Or to Rancho CalifornIa Rd 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 11,000 0.323 A 11,360 0.333 A 0.011 NOTES: s. City of Temecula Roadway Classification b. Rive",lde County Roadway Capacity c. City of Temecula General Plan Update, Circulation Element Traffic Study d. Volume I Capacity ratio e. Level of Service SOURCE: LLG, 2007. . Temecull!l RI!Iglonl!ll Hosplll!ll Final S\Jpplementl!ll Envlronml!lntal Impact Report 4.8 ESA/0207434 Jamlt'lry200e -, 4. Project Alternatives Table 4-2 summarizes the impacts of each of the alternatives relative to the project. "l j 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative 1 ] Section l5126.6(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, remains identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. , j "] ; J ] I I ~ -!, j "1 , >coO T emecula Regional Hospital Final SUpplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-9 ESA I 0207434 January 2008 J 4. PtojeetAlternatives TABLE 4.2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES RELATIVE TO IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Alternative 5: Alternative 6: Alternative 7: Impact Category No ProJect- No ProJact- Altemete Site Access from Access from Construction of Altematlvo Site No Build Development Under Corona Family Oertolo Road OePorto)a Rood the Hoepllel Only Temecula Education Current General Plan Properties and D8rtolo Road Center Aesthetics Avoided Reduced Greater Similar Similar Reduced Greater Agriculture Resources Avoided Similar Greater Similar Similar Similar Reduced Air Quality Avoided Greater Similar Similar Similar Reduced Similar Biological Resources Avoided Similar Undetermined Greater Greater Similar Similar Cultural Resources Avoided Similar SImilar Similar Similar Similar Similar Geology and Soils Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Hazards and Hazardous Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Materials Hydrology and Water Avoided Similar Similar SlmUar Similar Similar Similar Quality Land Use and Planning Avoided Reduced Greater SImilar Similar Reduced Greater Minerai Resources Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Noise Avoided Reduced Greater Similar SImilar Similar Reduced Population and Housing Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Public Services Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Recreation Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Transportation Avoided Greater Similar Greater Similar Reduced Greater Utilities and Service Avoided Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Systems Meets all objectives of the No No Ve. Ves Ve. No Ve. project? SOURCE: Environmental ScIence Associates, 2007. Temecula Regional Hoepltal Final Supplemental Envll'Onmentallmplllct Report 4-10 ESA/D207434 JanUlilry2008 " , J -1 CHAPTER 5 Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers ! " 5.1 Acronyms .i I'gIL micrograms per liter ., ADT average daily trips f ..1 ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan J ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ANSI American National Standards Institute ] AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board AST above-ground storage tank l bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practices '"l ,; BTEX benzene, toulene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department ofFish and Game City City ofTemecula ..; CEQA California Environmental Quality Act " J CoCo Constituents of Concern CIP Capital Improvement Program J CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide ~ CPT Cone Penetration Test CUP Conditional Use Permit ~ dB decibel ? j , cl Temewla RegionlN HospilaI Final Supp/em8ntal r: . ,;allmpad Report 5-1 ESA I 0207434 J'"""'Y2008 5. Acronyms, References. and list of Preparers dBA DIPE EPA DNL DOT DTSC ETBE FHWA FTA HWCL HWMP A-weighted decibels diisopropyl ether U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DaylNight Average Noise Level U.S. Department of Transportation California Department of Toxic Substance Control ethyl tertiary butyl ether Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Hazardous Waste Control Law Hz Hazardous Waste Management Plan Hertz ICU ITE Intersection Capacity Utilization Institute of Transportation Engineers energy-equivalent noise level day-night average noise level Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers maximum noise level L", Ldn LLG L~ LOS level of service MOB medical office building MOU Memorandum of Understanding MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOP Notice of Preparation NOX Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL USEPA's National Priorities List RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROG Reactive Organic Gases T ernewla Regional Hospital FinalSu~taIEnvironmerttatl~Report 5-2 I ESA/0207434 Ja....,.2008 ., '1 5. Acronyms. References. and List of Preparers ,j 1 J RWQCB SB SCAG SCAQMD SEIR SENEL SPeC TAME TBA TPHg TSCA TUMF UHS ~ ~ 11 J ~ ! .J "~ 1 oJ, Regional Water Quality Board south bound Southern Califomia Association of Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Single Event Noise Exposure Level Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure tertiary amyl methyl ether tertiary butyl alcohol total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline Toxic Substances Control Act Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. UST underground storage tank vie volume-to-capacity VOC volatile organic compounds ~ ~ 5.2 References California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq!LandArch/scenic_highways/. August 1 1,2005. City of Temecula General Plan, adopted April 2005. City ofTemecula, Municipal Code. County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. Cunniff, P.F., Environmental Noise PoIlution, 1977. Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses. BeIl 222 Twin Jet Helicopter, February 1984. Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Certified April 12,2005. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995 . '1 u ~? :l ~t. ~ II ~ 1 j .. 5-3 T emecula Regional Hu$pltal Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ~'"' ESA I D207434 Januaf)'2008 5. Acronyms, References. and Ust of Preparers Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Hospital, October 2007. Personal Communication, David Prusha, IlKS Inc. - Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002. SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment). October 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (WBE), http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm. March 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations. Building Equipment. and Home Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. 5.3 List of Preparers Lead Agency - City of Temecula Shawn Nelson, City Manager Aaron Adams, Assistant City Manager Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager Bill Hughes, Public Works Director Dan York, Deputy Director of Public Works Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Patrick Richardson, Principal Planner Steve Brown, Principal Planner Emery Papp, Senior Planner Project Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc. (Applicant) Linda Bradley Scott Crane Tim Rielly TemecuIa Regional Hospilal Final Supplemental EmnlOOmenlallmpad Report 5-4 ESA I D207434 """"2008 5. Acronyms. References, and list of Preparers 1 ] Consultants to the Lead Agency SCS Engineers (Subsurface/Groundwater Investigations) Tom Wright, Project ProfessionaUGeologist LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS (Traffic Engineers) . j John Boarman, Principal Narasimha Prasad, Senior Transportation Engineer 1 j Wieland Associates (Noise Consultant) David Wieland, Vice President, Principal Consultant Jonathan Higginson, Senior Consultant 1 i J 1 I' j Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director l j Christopher Knopp, Project Manager Rebecca Skaggs, Associate Jason Nielsen, Graphic Artist Lisa Bautista, Document Manager Melissa Gross, Document Manager Eugene Williams, Word Processor J , j , 1 .J ..~ j 1 ..I I I j 'E J .., , , TetMCUla Regional HospItal Final Supplemental :: , :allmpactReport 5-5 .. ESA I 0207<434 January 2008 ATTACHMENT NO. 12 . AUTHORIZATION OF SHORTENED PUBLIC REVIEW OF SEIR G:\Planning\2007\PA07~0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT-doc 39 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING ANn RESEARCH STATE CLEARiNGHOUSE AND PLANJIIING UNIT #!:."PlAJt>t<,; f ~,,~ ;"'~e \l.,-~.! '>:. ".-i>' "lFflFCAllfl)"l"". ARNOLDSCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR CnrnUA BRYANT o\~~~~O \W~Ij" n~ r.",/ U i 2nu, , / By PlanninqDepaltlllent November 2,2007 Emery J. Papp City of T emecula 43200 Business Park Drive T emecula, CA 92590 RE: Temecula Regional Hospital, (Supplemental EIR) SCH#2005031017 Dear Mr. 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 November 2, 2007 and end on December 3, 2007. If you have any questions, please contact Scott Morgan at (916) 445-0613. Si~fy l'Terry Roberts Director cc: file 1400 lOth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323.3018 www.opr.ca.gov City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Parle Drive. Temeeula, CA 92590. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033. Ternecula, CA 92589-9033 (951) 694-6400. FAX (951) 694-6477 October 31, 2007 Mr. Scott Morgan Senior Planner Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Suite 212 Sacramento, CA 95814 Request for Shortened Review of a Draft Supplemental EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project Dear Mr. Morgan: Subject: The City of Temecula Planning Department is the Lead Agency and has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. The City of Temecula is requesting a shortened (3D-Day) review of the SEIR for this project. The shortened review is being requested because a Project EIR was previously certified for this project. A subsequent legal challenge ruling by the Riverside County Superior Court required the City of Temecula to prepare a Supplemental EIR for the project and a scoping session was held on July 12, 2007, where the City heard public input and testimony, and determined that a Supplemental EIR analyzing potential impacts identified in the attached NOP should be prepared for this project. The City of Temecula previously released for public review and comment, 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. No State Agencies commented on the original Initial Study. Comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were addressed. Furthermore, at a public hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City heard public input and testimony and determined that a Project EIR should be prepared. The scope of the project did not change and the City prepared a Project EIR that addressed potential impacts regarding aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation/circulation. The Project EIR was circulated for public review and comment from September 28, 2005 to October 28, 2005 after having requested and been granted approval of a shortened 3D-day public review period. The City certified the Project EIR on January 24, 2006. Subsequent to certification, the Project EIR was challenged and a writ of mandate was issued by the Riverside County Superior Court to prepare a Supplemental EIR for the Project. The court held that the Project EIR noise analysis was not adequate, that the analysis of traffic mitigation measures was not adequate, and that the Project EIR should have, but did not, address the potential impacts of MTBE plumes in the underground water in vicinity of the site caused by leaking underground fuel tanks under remediation at three closely located gas stations. G:\Planning\2007\PA01-Q198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Plannlng\SCH Request - Shortened Review.doc In response to the writ of mandate issued by the court, the City of Temecula, as lead agency, has prepared a Supplemental EIR for the Project, which addresses the concerns cited by the court. The Notice of Completion is attached to this letter. 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 the State Clearinghouse approve the request for a shortened review period for this project. We respectfully request that your agency provide a written response regarding the request for a shortened review period to Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner, City of Temecula, by November 2,2007. If I may be of any assistance, please contact me directly at (951) 694-6400, or via e-mail at emerv.oaoo@citvoftemecula.org. Thank you for your consideration and quick response to this request. Sincerel ;f.~~ Emery J. P p, AI~P Senior Planner Attachments: Notice of Completion Notice of Preparation Completed SCH Shortened Review Request Form Prior approval of 3O-day public review cc: 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 Reaional: South Coast Air Quality Management District Western Riverside Council of Governments Riverside Countv: Airport Land Use Commission Flood Control and Water Conservation District Health Department Planning Department Habitat Conservation Agency G:IPlanning\2007IPA07.Qt98 Temecula Regional Hasp"al GPA. SEIRIPlanning\SCH Request - Shortened RevIew.doc Riverside Countv (continued) Riverside Transit Agency Transportation Department Utilities: Eastern Municipal Water District Inland Valley Cablevision Rancho California Water District Southern Caiifornia Gas Southern California Edison Temecula Valley School District Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Verizon Other: Pechanga Indian Reservation Eastern I nformation Center local Agency Formation Commission Riverside County Transportation Commission G:\Plannlngl2OO7\PA07-0198 Teme<>J1a Regional Hospital GPA. SE1RIPlannlnglSCH Request - Shortened Review.doc City of Temecula Plannin~ Department Notice of Completion SCH # 2005031017 [' Project-Title: Temecu!.-Ii.egionafHospital ~--- .- PA07-0198, General Plan Amendment; pA07-0199, Zone Change; pA07-02oo, . Development Plan; pA07-0201, Tentative Parcel Map; and pA07-0202, Conditional Use Permit Lead Agency: City ofTemecula Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive II City: Temecula, CA Zip: 92590 I 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 Do<ument Type [ )NOp r lEarly Consultation I Local Action Type [ JGeneral Plan Update [ ]Specific Plan I [X]General Plan Amendment []Master Plan ' [J Gcneral Plan Element [ ]Planned Unit Development II [il~~:uni~~:onaIJ.!sel'e~Site 1'lanIPlot l'lan Development Type []Residential: Units_ Acres_ [lWater Facilities: Type MGD_ [X]Office: Sq.ft.l40.00Q Acres 35.31 Employees_ []Transportation Type [JCommercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres Employees_ []Mining: Mineral I [ jlndustrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees_ [ ]Power: Type , []Educational: - - [ ]Waste Treatment: Type [ )Recreational: [ lHazardous Waste: Type rX10ther:J:I9Sll.itaI408.l6l) SF, Ft.: Cancer Center 10,000 So.Ft: Fitness Center 8.000 S<U't. Project Issues Discussed in Document [ )AestheticlVisual [ ]1'1000 PlainlFIooding [ ]Schools/Universities [ ] Water Quality [ )Agricultural Land [ ]Forest LandJFire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [X]Water supply/groundwater [ ]Air Quality [ ]GeologiclSeismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetlandIRiparian [ lArcheologicaIIHistorical [ ]Minerals [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife [ )Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing [ lDrainage/Absorption [ ]PopulationIHousing Balances[ ]ToxiclHazardous [ JLand Use [ ]EconomiclJobs [ ]Public ServiceslFacilities [X]TrafficlCirculation [X]Cumulative Effects [ lFiscal r IRecreationIParb f ]V e~etation [ 10ther: Light & Glare Present Land Use: Vacant CUI'rent Zoning: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (1'00-8) I General Plan Use: Professional Office Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9), Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and a Conditional Use Permit. 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 2(lning from Professional Office j' and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PD0-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), The proposed PDO-9 allows a height of up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for the hospital I bed towers. . 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 on 35.31 acres. I The Tentative Parcel Map.is a reQuest to consolidate elaht (8) lots Into one (1) parcel. =_ ._J Contact Person: Emery J. Papp Title: Senior Planner Phone: (951) 694-6400 Within 2 miles Slllte Hwy #: Interstate \5, Highway 79 South Airports: NI A Waterways: Tem.ecula Creek Railways: None Schools: Sparlcman Elemenrary, Rancho Community (private school under construction) [ ]Negative Declaration [X]Supplement ElR r IDraft EIR f ISubswuent EIR [ ]EIR (Prior SCH #) r IOther [X]Rezone [ ]prezone [X)Use Permits [X]Subdivision of Land [ ]Annexation [ ]Redevelopment [ lCoastal Permit [ ]City Development Project G:\Planning\2007\PA07-o198 Temecula Regional Hospilal GPA. SElRIPlanningINOCINOllCEOF COMPI.E110N SElR 10-31-o7.doc 1 On January 24, 2006, the City of T emecula certified a Project EIR for the project. Subsequent to certification, a ' legal challenge to the Project EIR was filed with Riverside County Superior Court. This Supplemental EIR was prepared to further analyze issues the court ruled were not adequately covered in the Project E1R. The issues identified by the court as needing further analysis include: construction noise impacts; siren noise impacts; . clarification of project specific and cumulative projects traffic mitigation: and potential impacts to the site from I undergr:ound methYUlilrtiary butyl ether plumes, under remediation, in proximity of the project site. ~ T _.__~_.. ".. . _.. ..~______ ____:~.___.____ Mail to: State Oe.aringhOUse, 1400 Tenth Street, SaCrVnCnlo, CA 95814 (916)445-0613 G:U'~nnlng\2007lPA07-0198 Tomccuk Regional Hospital OPA, SElRIPlanningINOCINOTICB OF COMPlETION SElR 10-3I-07.doc 2 REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST Resources Agency BoatinglWaterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Conservation ..I Fish and Game Forestry Office of Historic Preservation Parks and Recreation Reclamation S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Conunission ...I. Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation, & Housing ...I. Aeronautics L California Highway Patrol L Caltrans District No. -1- ...I. Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters) Housing & Community Development Other State & Consumer Services General Services ...I. OLA (Schools) Public Review Period: Starting Date: November 5,2007 Signature Date Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable): City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Emery J. Papp, AICP Phone (951) 694-6400 If APP~cant: Inlan-::~a~le; Medical Center, Inc. Address 25500 Medical Center Drive I Murrieta, CA 92652 l~one (951) 7S7~97~ KEY S=Document sent by lead agency X =Document sent by 8CB 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 Ending Date: December 5, 2007 October 3 I. 2007 -=---..- I , For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Noles: I , I G:\Plonning\2001\PA07'()198 Temecula Region.1 HOSpilal GPA, SElRIPlmninglNOaNOl1CE OFCOMPLE110N SElR 1<l-31-07.doc 3 City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Preparation To: Distribution List (Attached) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Phone Number: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400 The City ofTemecula prepared a project EIR (SCH # 2005031017) for the Temecula Regional Hospital project and circulated the project EIR for public review from September 26. 2005 through October 28, 2005 after obtaining approval of a shortened public review period from the State Clearinghouse. The City of T emecula certified the EIR and approved the T emecula Regional Hospital project on January 24, 2006. The EIR and project approvals were challenged in Riverside County Superior Court. On April 6, 2007 the Court ruled that portions of the final EIR for the project addressing traffic mitigation, nearby leaking underground fuel tanks, and noIse were not sufficient. The issues cited in the Court's ruling are included on the attached Exhibit "B: The City of T emecula will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a supplemental EIR to address the issues identified in the Court's ruling. We need to know the views of your agency concerning environmental information germane to your agencY's statutory responsibilities concerning the issues identified by the court, Your agency may need to use the Supplemental EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location (Exhibit "N), and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. Staff did not prepare an Initial Environmental Study to determine the potential impacts of the project because a project EIR was previously prepared for the project and the Court has identified the issues to be addressed In the SEIR. Your agency previously received a copy of the prior draft project EIR, which includes the initial study previously prepared for the project and responses to any comments your agency submitted on the draft EIR. The EIR thai was previously certified is available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive. 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. R:\pappe\Hospltallssues\Supplemental erR 2007\NOP 07.QS.07.doC " f i f: ?: if ~ ~ f !' i t , ~ f' f: ~ I, ~ 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. tel-I! IJy Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning 1J5-tJ7J- Date R:\pappelHospltallssu'$\Supplemeotal EIR 2007\NO? 07-05-07 .doc City of Temecula Planning Department PROJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital DISTRIBUTION DATE: July 6, 2007 CASE PLANNER: Emery J. Papp CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety ................................... ( x) Fire Department..................................... ( x) Sheriff .................................................... ( x) Parks & Recreation (TCSD)................... ( x) Planning, Advance..............................y.( x) Public Wor1<s.........................................: ( 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) R~ppe\HO$pitalls!ues~upplemental EIR 2OO7\NOP 07.os.o7.* Agency Distribution List 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 ) Southem California Gas. . .. .......... (x) Southern California Edison.................... (x) Temecula Valley School Districl............ (x) Metropolitan Water District.................... (x) Verizon .................................................. (x) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ............... (x) Eastern Information Center ................... ( x) Local Agency Formation Commission... (x) RCTe ................................................... (x) Homeowners' Association ..................... (x) Los Ranchitos Santiago Estates County of San Diego, Planning Dept..... ( ) s t f: ! ~ j; , , Exhibit A , \ EXHIBIT B Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (attachment) Lead Agency: City ofTemecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Phone Number: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400 Issues to be analyzed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Hospital, as determined by the Riverside County Supelior Court include the following: Hvdroloav and Groundwater - Off-site leaking underground fuel tanks and contaminated groundwater plume; Noise Issues - Construction operations noise and emergency vehicle siren noise; Traffic/Circulation Issues - Project specific mitigation and cumulative project mitigation. R:\pappeIHospitallssuesl$upplemenlal EIR 2007INOP allachmonldoc ~ ; & Shortened Review Request Form Form E (To be filled out and signed by lhe Lead Agency and submitted with DEJR or Negative Declaration to seH) To, State Clearinghouse P,O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 From: r.i,.y nf 'I'pmp ("" 1 0 LcadAecnc)': 43200 BllFdnes~ 'P):Il"'K nrivp Addr... Temecula, CA 92590 Phone #: (951 ) 694-6400 SCH # il005031017 Contact:~merv Pam). A'!CP, ~pni()r Pl~nn..,.r Project Title: Temp:cul.1'1 RpQional HnJ:lnit;;ll City Riverside COWlty Project Location: Temecula Explain "exceptional circumstances" (CEQA, Section lS20S(d)) for requesting a sh<lrtencd review: A Mitigate~ Nefativp De~~a~~tion was circulated for DUh1~~ ~~mmen~ _~!0m ~arch 8. 2005 ~o April ~ ?OO~ C::"hcC:pqupnf-'~_ <II 'PT'~~Il>t"'t- ~TR 'WB.S..-"'.J.,......~.lq,...ptl fnT .......1<.1...,.. "nmmpnf- from Seoterober 28. ?005 to O~tober 2R. 200.,. The Proiect EIR was certified on Janua~y 24, 2006. A Supplement EIR was vrepared in resDonse to a writ of mandate issued by Riverside County Superior Court. List responsible and trustee state agencies, as well as allY agencies that bave commented on the project (Indicate whether the Respon' sible and Trustee Agencies have granted approval fot tI1is shortened review): Dept. of Toxic Substances Control No Comment concernin~ Shortened Reouest N~rivp AmPTirnn Hp~ir~g~ r.ommic~inn " Sonthern CA ASFiociation of Governments u As dcsigllated representative for the lead agency J I verify, in their behalf, that there is no "statewide, regional. or areawide significance" to this project. Length of review being requested: 1.0 days ~ i 10/31/2007 Today's Dale Emerv J. PaDD Print Name Gtr.f'YJ Revised Jalluary 2004 Jl e STATE! OF CALIFORNIA Govern.or's O.fnca of Planping l!-pd Re.!l!l!!~cJ;C. State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit '. ~..~rr. N~ ...._(.t ..-:....~I Arnold Scbwan:fn:SSel' OovmlQr ScanWlIlih Director September 26. 200,5 Emery J. Fapp : City ofTemecula ~ 43200 BuSiness p~ Drive Temccula. CA 92$90 RE: TCinecl\la Re~ional Hospital (EJR) SCH#2005031 017 Dear Btl)e(}' J.l'llljP: .' We have reviewe!l your shoitened review request and have determined that!it is consistent with the criteria sel f9rth in Ule wrill.cn guidelines of the Office of 1'lannin~ and Research for shortened review~ and Section 21091 ofthe Publie Resources Code. The shortened reView peri~d for an EIR slta11 ';"1 bo less than 30 days. The review process for the. referenced p1ect will start on 09/2812005 and end on 10128/2005. . i . If you have any q~elilions. please. contact Soott Morgan at (916) 445-0613. S~ 1 ~',;/ . fI_~ .~vr(rr- ~erryRober1s , . Director co: Ille 1400 TPlTH EI\'IlEET P.O.1lOX SQ44 S,\<l1lAMENTO, CALlFOBNLl 96&lUll" ~ . TEL (91B) ~.oolJ l'AX (916) 823.:1018 .........OF.ea.goY : ; t V Shortened Review Request Form Form E (1'0 be filled out and signl:d by the Lelld Ag~ey Jnd submitted with DBIR or Ne8atjy~ Declaration to SCH) 1'0: State Clearinghouse P.O"Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 FrQm: CITY OF ...~.I..1!.....iu':..A. LeadA;ency: &1200 BUBin~AA Park nriva AddreJl TOmecula, CA 92590 Phone#: (951) 694-6400 SOl # 2005031017 Contact EllERY J. PAPP, AlCE' SEIlIOR PLAliNER Project Tide; 'rEMKCUIA. REGIO!lAL HOSPITAL Project Locarlort: TEIlECULA C;IJ' llVIllISIDB C....lY Explain"exceptton$.J clreumsr~t$" (CEQA, So\lti~n J 520S(d)) for requesting I shortened review: ~ iuit:ial studv (SCB. 12005031017) for this nro1eot vas "ravious1v releBBed fox llublie re"ti.ev .and comment v1.tb the intent of preparing a Hitigated Ile.,gativu: naclarat1.on. The commeut period for the pt'opose4 l!I1cisated Negative Declarac10D was Harch 8. 2005 tht'ough April 6, ZOOS. No Scate Agencies c",""",n'!:ed 1m the original Initial Scudy. 'Ihe BeoFe of che project: b.Wi not changed; hmrever, the City is now rec."..,end:l.!!g that a l"ocused EIR be prepared. The at.tached let:ter vas Gent to agencie.s requesting their authoriZ's;tioD for a shortene.d rev1.ev. The C;f.ty received no response.s ~o thIs lett.er. List responsible and truslce state agencies, as well 8S any e.gencies that MVC commenled on the prQJeCI (1J1dicatc wb.,lher the Rospon- sible and Trustee Asendes ha.Ye lJf"4ted apptOvtJ for thiB shOltened review): . !lative Aaerioan Red.t,,&<, C<>IIIIIissioll 8/lS/0S lio <:"-"nt "onee:<ubl shortened req"~at Rivet'side Trall8it A~ency 8/19/05 Paohaug8 Cultural ReBourc~8 8/29/05. 10 cOIlIIIlent concertd.n.g shorte.ned request: Bo coaaent cotu:eraJ:a.; shortened J:'eque:st As d~signs.ced ~p(tSentative (or !.he lead agency, I verify. in tb~ir behalf. that. dtcrc b no "statewide. regional, or QrCtwide significance" to this project. .Lt:ngth of review beil1g "qu~t(;d; 30 da)'$ D,lu/os Tod~y's Oate I!IIERr J. PAl.'P PrlntName ~/ ~ I f>_ A-P . Signature 0 0 I ~ Revised January 2004 31 ATTACHMENT NO. 13 NOTICE OF COMPLETION/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF SEIR G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 40 DATE: TO: SUBJECT: October 31, 2007 Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations NOTICE OF COMPLETION/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT OF A DRAFT THE TEMECULA The City of Temecula is the lead Agency and has prepared a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project. Preparation of this SEIR is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Environmental Impact Report that was originally prepared, circulated, and certified for this project was challenged in court and the court held that an SEIR was required to further address construction noise impacts; siren noise impacts; clarification of project specific and cumulative projects traffic mitigation; and potential impacts to the site from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether plumes, under remediation, in proximity of the project site. ProDosed 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 Numbers 920-100-001 through 13) City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. Sianificant Environmental Effects of the Proiect The Supplemental EIR (SEIR) was prepared to further analyze issues the court ruled were not adequately covered in the Project EIR. The issues identified by the court as needing further analysis include: construction noise impacts; siren noise impacts; clarification of project specific and cumulative projects traffic mitigation; and potential impacts to the site from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether plumes, under remediation, in proximity of the project site. The court also ruled that all other sections of the Project EIR are adequate under CEQA and are not subject to further review. Comments regarding the Temecula Regional Hospital Project are limited to the contents of the SEIR and the TeChnical Appendices for the SEIR. The Draft Supplemental EIR is available for public review and comment from November 5, 2007 through December 5,2007. All comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR must be in writing and should be sent to Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner, City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590. Mr. Papp can also be contacted by phone at (951) 694-6400, by fax at (951) 694-6477, and bye-mail at emerv.oaoo((i)citvoftemecula.ora.. Copies of the Draft Supplemental 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 Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula; and the Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula. City of Temecula Plannin~ Department SCH # 2005031017 Notice of Completion Contact Person: Emery J. Papp Title: Senior Planner Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital PA07-0198, General Plan Amendment; PA07-0199, Zone Change; PA07-0200, Development Plan; PA07-0201, Tentative Parcel Map; and PA07-0202, Conditional Use Permit Lead Agency: City of Temecula Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive City: Temecula, CA Zip: 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 r lEarly Consultation Local Action Type [ ]General Plan Update [ lSpecific Plan [X]General Plan Amendment [lMaster Plan [ lGeneral Plan Element [ ]Planned Unit Development [ ]Community Plan [X]Site PlanIPlot Plan rXlOther Conditional Use Permit Development Type []Residential: Units_ Acres [ ]WaterFacilities: Type MGD [XlOffice: Sq.ft.140.000 Acres 35.31 Employees_ [ lTransportation []Commercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres Employees_ []Mining: [ ]Industrial: Sq. ft._ Acres_ Employees_ [ ]Power: [ lEducational: [ ]Waste Treatment: [ lRecreational: [ ]Hazardous Waste: IXI0ther: HosDita1408.160 So. FI.: Cancer Center 10,000 So Ft.: Fitness Center 8.000 So Ft. Project Issues Discussed in Document [ ]AestheticNisual [ ]Flood Plain/Flooding [ ]Schools1Universities [ ] Water Quality [ ]Agricultural Land [ ]Forest Land/Fire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [X]Water supply/groundwater [ ]Air Quality [ ]GeologidSeistnic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetlandlRiparian [ ]ArcheologicallHistorical [ ]Minerals [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife [ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing [ ]Drainage/ Absorption [ ]PopulationIHousing Balances[ ]ToxiclHazardous [ ]Land Use [ ]Econotnic/Jobs [ ]Public ServicesIFacilities [X]Traffic/Circulation [X]Cumulative Effects [ lFiscal r lRecreationlParks r lVegetation r lOther: Light & Glare Presenl Land Use: Vacant Current Zoning: Profcssional Office and Planned Developmenl Overlay (PDO-8) General Plan Use: Professional Office Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9), Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and a Conditional Use Penni!. 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 2Dning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (pDO-B) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height of up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for the hospital bed towers. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately i ~ 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres. I' The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eiQht (8) lots into one (1) parcel. ~ 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) [ ]N egative Declaration r lDraft EIR [X]Supplement EIR r lSubsequent EIR [ ]EIR (Prior SCH #) r lOther [X]Rezone [ ]Prezone [X]Use Permits [xlSubdivision of Land [ ]Annexation [ ]Redevelopment [ ]Coastal Permit [ ]Cily Development Project Type Mineral Type Type Type G:\Planning\2007\PA07.Q198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIRlPlanningINOONOTICEOF COMPLETION SEIR 10-31.Q7.doc I On January 24,2006, the City of Temecula certified a Project EIR for the project. Subsequent to certification, a II legal challenge to the Project EIR was filed with Riverside County Superior Court. This Supplemental EIR was H prepared to further analyze issues the court ruled were not adequately covered in the Project EIR. The issues I identified by the court as needing further analysis include: construction noise impacts; siren noise impacts; , clarification of project specific and cumulative projects traffic mitigation; and potential impacts to the site from j under\;jround methyl tertiary butyl ether plumes, under remediation, in proximity of the project site. Mail to: State Clearinghouse. 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916)445-0613 G:IP!anning\2007IP A07.()! 98 Temecula Regional Hospil:li GP A, SEIRIPlanningINOCINOTICE OF COMPlETION SEIR ! 0-31'()7.doc 2 REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST Resources Agency BoatinglWaterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Conservation ...I Fish and Game Forestry Office of Historic Preservation Parks and Recreation Reclamation S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission -.L Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation, & Housing -.L Aeronautics l California Highway Patrol l Caltrans District No. --1- -.L Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters) Housing & Community Development Other State & Consumer Services General Services -.L OLA (Schools) Public Review Period: Starting Date: November 5, 2007 Signature . Date KEY S=Documenl senl by lead agency X=Documenl senl by SCH T=Suggesled 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 -.L 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 Ending Dale: December 5, 2007 October 31, 2007 --------- ----------.-- I L..,......" (Compl", ;f A"Ii""'!,), City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Emery J. Papp, AICP Phone (951) 694-6400 Applicant: Inland VaIJey Medical Center, Inc. Address 25500 Medical Center Drive Murrieta, CA 92652 Phone (951) 757-9796 For sm Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: ~ ! , i , i ! O,IPlanning\2007\PA07'()198 Temecula Regional Hospi..1 OPA, SEIRIPlanningINOCINOTICE OF COMPLETION SEIR 1()'31.()7.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 14 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF SEIR G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEJR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 41 City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Preparation To: Distribution List (Attached) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Phone Number: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400 The City ofT emecula prepared a project EIR (SCH # 2005031017) for the T emecula Regionai Hospital project and circulated the project EIR for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005 after obtaining approval of a shortened public review period from the State Clearinghouse. The City ofTemecula certified the EIR and approved the Temecula Regional Hospital project on January 24, 2006. The EIR and project approvals were challenged in Riverside County Superior Court. On April 6, 2007 the Court ruled that portions of the final EIR for the project addressing traffic mitigation, nearby leaking underground fuel tanks, and noise were not sufficient. The issues cited in the Court's ruling are included on the attached Exhibit "B." The City of Temecula will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a supplemental EIR to address the issues identified in the Court's ruling. We need to know the views of your agency concerning environmental information germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities concemlng the issues identified by the court. Your agency may need to use the Supplemental EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location (Exhibit "N), and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. Staff did not prepare an Initial Environmental study to determine the potential impacts of the project because a project EIR was previously prepared for the project and the Court has identified the issues to be addressed in the SEIR. Your agency previously received a copy of the prior draft project EIR, which includes the initial study previously prepared for the project and responses to any comments your agency submitted on the draft EIR. The EIR that was previously certified is available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive. 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. R:\pappe\Hospitallssues\Supplemental EJR 2007\NOP 07.Q5-07 .doc Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital Project Location: City of Temecula, Riverside County, Califomia 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. ctlL iJv 1-J-t;r Date Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:\pappe\Kospjt81Issu~s\Supplement81 E1R 2007\NOP 07.05-07.doc Exhibit A " EXHIBIT B Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (attachment) Lead Agency: City of T emecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Phone Number: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400 Issues to be analyzed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Hospital, as determined by the Riverside County Superior Court include the following: Hvdroloov and Groundwater - Off-site leaking underground fuel tanks and contaminated groundwaler plume; Noise Issues - Construction operations noise and emergency vehicle siren noise; Traffic/Circulation Issues - Project specific mitigation and cumulative project mitigation. R:lpappelHospilallssueslSupplemenlal EIR 2007lNOP attachment.doc City of Temecula Planning Department PROJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital DISTRIBUTION DATE: July 6, 2007 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 ) R:\pappe\Hospitallssues\Supplemental EIR 2OO7\NOP 07.05-07.doc Agency Distribution List 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) South em California Gas. . .. .......... (x) South em California Edison.................... (x) Temecula Valley School District............ (x) Metropolitan Water District.................... (x) Verizon .................................................. (x) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ............... (x) Eastem Information Center ................... (x) Local Agency Formation Commission... (x) RCTC ................................................... (x) Homeowners' Association ..................... (x) Los Ranchitos Santiago Estates County of San Diego, Planning Dept..... ( ATTACHMENT NO. 15 JANUARY 24, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES G:\Planning\2007\PA07~0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 42 I I I RESOLUTION NO. 06-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE OR MODIFY LEASES AND RENTAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE CITY.QWNED PROPERTY AT 41943 MAIN STREET MOTION: Council Member Edwards moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-14 and 16. Council Member Comerchero seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Mayor Roberts who was absent and Council Member Naggar who abstained with regard to Item NO.6 as it pertains to the Boys and Girls Club. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 15 CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION 15 Comments on Cable Television Franchisino to Federal Communications Commission RECOMMENDATION: 15.3 Approve comments regarding cable television franchise provisions; 15.4 Authorize the Mayor to sign the comments and direct staff to submit them to the Federal Communications Commission. At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Washington, Assistant City Manager O'Grady reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material). MOTION: Council Member Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 15. Council Member Edwards seconded the motion and electronic vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Mayor Roberts who was absent. At 7:37 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:48 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular business. PUBLIC HEARING 21 Temecula Reajonal Hospital (Plannino Aooli~tions 04-0462 (General Plan Amendment\. 05- 0302lZone Chanoe). 04-0463 IDevelooment Plan and Conditional Use Permitl. and 04- 0571 !Tentative Parcel Mao\' RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Minules\012406 6 RESOLUTION NO. 06.Q5 I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL 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.QSO- 001 THROUGH 959-OS0-004 AND 959-OS0-007 THROUGH 959-OS0-010 (PA04- 0462, PAOS-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-(571) 21.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: I RESOLUTION NO. 06.Q6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (S) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO-STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS 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-OS0.Q01 THROUGH 959-OS0-004 AND 959-OS0-007 THROUGH 959.QSO-010 (PA04-0462) 21.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entilled: ORDINANCE NO. 06.Q1 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.QSO.Q01 THROUGH 959.QSO-o04 AND 959.QS.Q07 THROUGH 959-080.Q10 (PA05-0302) 21.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: I R:\Minutes\012406 7 I I I RESOLUTION NO. 06-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELIPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELIPAD,1WO 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 NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959- 080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0463) 21.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06-08 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) Planning Director Ubnoske presented the staff report (as per agenda material), highlighting the following: . That the proposed Zone Change amendment would remove the one-story and two- story height restriction in the Z-1 Overlay; . That the Zone Change would allow for a maximum of 30% of the roof area of the hospital (the two bed towers) to be a height of up to 115'; . That the hospital, cancer center, fitness center, helipad, and medical office buildings are proposed to be constructed in phases; . That the Medical Office Building II will be constructed in Phase IA; that the hospital and 6-story tower will be constructed in Phase IB; that the hospital five-story tower will be constructed in Phase II; that Medical Office Building I will be constructed in Phase III; that the cancer center will be constructed in Phase IV; and that the fitness center will be constructed in Phase V (last phase) . That the proposed architectural style will be consistent with the architectural style of vicinity - Spanish Mediterranean with stucco siding and a tower roof - similar to the Rancho Community Church architectural style . That at the April 6, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission, on the advice of the Assistant City Attorney, continued the project and directed staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . That at the April 20, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the following issues were identified and have been reflected in the EIR: o Traffic and Circulation R:\Minul2s\012406 8 I I I o Noise associated with Traffic and the proposed helipad o Aesthetics related 10 the height of the hospilal o Hydrology and groundwater . That a screen check and draft EIR have been reviewed by staff . That the draft EIR was taken to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2005 . That at the November 16, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued this item in order to allow staff ample time to review and respond to additional comments . That al the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, staff requested a continuance in order for staff to continue addressing/reviewing/responding to the addilional comments and, therefore, the public hearing was continued to the January 5,2006 . That at the January 5, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission had the opportunity to review all testimony and all response to comments; that the Planning Commission struggled with the height issue of the proposed bed towers but ultimately approved a motion to recommend that the City Council support the project as proposed . That the applicant has contended that the bed towers may not be redesigned to a lower height without sacrificing patient care and without jeopardiZing compliance with State regulatory requirements . That any reconsideration of the design would result in additional delays of up to two years in providing necessary hospital services for the community . That the Planning Commission unanimously voted to proceed with the current proposal, noting that the height would be an issue of concem and requesting that the City Council review this matter . That the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR, approve Planning Application Nos. 04-0462, 05-0302, 04-0463, and 04-0571 based upon the findings in the conditions of approval . That Condition No. 91 of the Development Plan should be amended to read as follows: that a Construction Area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered civil or traffic engineer and reviewed by the Direclor of Public Works for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works; that the Traffic Control Plan shall indicate that construction lraffic may not use the entrance from De Portola Road to access the site · That corrected copies of the EIR resolution were distributed to the City Council, the Mitigation Moniloring Report, Conditional Use Permit resolution, and Conditions of Approval, reflecting that any reference to the extension of Dartolo Road as part of the approval be removed; that both the Planning staff and the Commission recommended that Dartolo Road not be extended onto the hospital properly . That Errata Sheets highlighting changes to the EIR were distributed along with copies of correspondence (some received as late as yesterday afternoon) As per a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Laura Stetson of P&D Consultants addressed specifics of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and darified the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Process, noting the following: . That the State had granted the staff-requested 3D-day review of the Draft EIR . That the Initial Study process identified impact that would require detailed analysis in EIR . That the Study indicated that the following issues required detailed analysis: R:\Minutes\012406 9 I o Aesthetics o Air quality o Groundwater and hydrology o Land Use and Planning o Noise o Transportation o Alternatives to the Project o Cumulative Impacts o Responses to written comments . That all other issues were adequately addressed in the Initial Study (part of the Draft and Final EIR document) EIR Analvsis and Conclusions o Terms and phrases used in the EIR . Unavoidable significant impact . Impacts associated with lhe project that have mitigation measures applied which become conditions on the project but even with the imposition of those conditions/mitigation measures, those significant affects cannot be avoided . Air Quality o Short term (construction), long term (operations), and cumulative . Noise o Helicopter overflights . Anticipation of no more than one emergency flight into and out of the facility per month - permit from Caltrans will permit up to six emergency flights into and out of the facility per month I . Traffic o Cumulative impacts on roadway segments . Potentially significant Impacts that can be mitigated or avoided . Impacts were analyzed and were considered not to be significant and can be avoided . Aesthetics o Light and glare . Noise o Operational (mechanical equipment, generalors) . Traffic o Contribution to intersections and road segments projected to operate at LOS E and F I . Impacts considered but found to be less than significant . Aesthetics o scenic highways; visual character or quality . Air Quality o Odors; consistency with regional plans . Hydrology and water quality R:\Minules\012406 10 I I I o Water supply; storm water volume and quality . Land Use and Planning o Compalibility with surrounding uses - General Plan consistency . Noise o Construction, ground-borne vibrations, sirens, loading dock, and other on-site activities - City does not have a Noise Ordinance - it has noise standards in the General Plan . Alternatives to the Project . No Project - No development . No Project - Commercial/Office Development . Alternate Site . Alternate Access . Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road - restriction on the proposed driveway to De portola Road to a right-hand turn in and right-hand turn oul- left-hand turn in and no left-hand turn out would be permitted onto De Portola Road; that De Portola Road currently functions as a low-lane road; that the General Plan designated it as a four-lane road; . Hospital only . That Oral comments made at the November 16, 2005, and January 5, 2006, Planning Commission hearings, induded the following: o Noise - sirens - two ambulance trips per day with sirens - sirens will only be used to clear traffic - sirens turned off once on hospital property o Hazardous wastes from hospilal operations - stringent State/Federal regulations o Potential groundwater pollution from adjacent gas station o Traffic on Pio Pico - even if assumed all Margarita Road traffic were diverted to Pio Pico, the LOS on Pio Pico would not be lowered to an unacceptable standard per City standards o Cumulative traffic impacts o Change in neighborhood character - General Plan designates this site for the use as proposed; that the proposed uses are consistent with the surrounding development to the east, west, and south; that the buildings have been pulled as far as possible toward the highway to ensure the use is a good neighbor with the neighborhood to the north of the project site - substantial setbacks and landscaping o Additional alternatives In response to the Council Members, Mr. Jose Nunez, representing Lyn Scott Law and Greenspan Traffic Engineers, San Diego; Ms. Stetson; and Public Works Director Hughes noted the following: . That with regard to siren noise, the City currently has a number of emergency calls to date based on its population and that the overall City-wide affect on the siren noise R:\Minules\012406 11 I I I would be the same; that the only growth in siren noise would be related to lhe growth of the City; . That analysis indicated that virtually no traffic associated with the hospital would utilize Pio Pico, stating that this assumption was based on the fact thaI it would be almost twice the travel distance if making the right-hand turn on Pio Pico and left- hand turn on De Portola rather than continuing south on Margarita Road and making a right-hand turn on De Portola . That the traffic sludies included alternatives, reflecting comparative analysis if the public driveway off De Portola were there versus not being placed there but as far as for EIR purposes, it was always reflected as being there . That no particular designation was imposed on the De Portola driveway such as emergency only, staff, etc. . That the LOS at Margarita Road/SR 79 north intersection would be compromised without the driveway access of De Portola; that the LOS at that particular intersection would reach a high level of E close to F during peak hours . That the hospital entrance off De portola would not necessarily be in line with Pio Pico; that the entrance was purposely moved as far east as practical to ensure travel trips on Pio Pico were not increased . That off De Portola, there will be a right-hand tum in and out and a left-hand turn in to the hospital . That the air quality issues for the hospital will be primarily vehicle trips . That studies indicated that if commercial uses were approved for the subject site versus the proposed hospital, twice the amount of vehicle trips would be generated and that air quality would proportionately increase as well . That when the City inheriled Ynez Road/De Portola from the County, it was designated to handle more travel trips than what is being proposed with the hospital . That the proposed project would not increase the use of Ynez Road/De Portola . That from a traffic standpoint, an access off De Portola would be desirable even if only commercial uses were proposed because it would have the capacity to handle a commercial project with much higher volumes than what is being anticipated with the hospital project . That the applicant will not be required to widen De Portola to four lanes to Margarita Road; that the applicant will be required to complete frontage improvements to meet the current City standards and to transition several hundred feet in each direction; that De Portola would be four lanes in front of the hospital entrance but not all the way to Margarita Road . That in the event traffic volume were to reach a level where four lanes west of this project location were necessary, the matter would be addressed through a Capital Improvement Project; that the forecasted volumes on De Portola may not ever warrant widening it to four lanes . That the configuration of Ynez RoadlDe Portola will conform wilh that of the General Plan Update (rural-nature road) By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Dan Johnson, Vice President of SCS Engineers doing business as Environmental Business Solutions, clarified that he is a member of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board thaI has jurisdiction over the tanks that will be discussed this evening but that his position this evening would be as an environmental consultant and not as a member of the Regional Water Quality. Providing an overview of the proposed project as it relates to groundwater issues. Mr. Johnson noted the following: R\MinulesIOI2406 12 I I I . That his work included comprehensive file reviews at the Regional Water Quality Review Board and conducted interviews of lhe Rancho California Water Districl and conducted an intrusive field inspection, sampling of both soil and of groundwater at the project site . That gasoline releases have happened at these three different gas stations; that MTBE has been found in groundwater downgradient of the stations - not an uncommon phenomenon; . That remediation has and continues to occur at the three different gas stations to address each release . That the only detectable gasoline constituent near the proposed site is MTBE and was only present in the monitoring well; that after intrusive testing, it was detennined that MTBE was not present in the groundwater at the proposed site . That MTBE concentrations have generally been decreasing over time due to remediation efforts . That even if Well No. 120 (well closest to the site and one that received public attention) were contaminated and the use were discontinued, the service would switch to other wells in the area; that recent sampling information reported that there were no detectable levels of MTBE in Well No. 120 . That the potential impacts to the proposed site are two-fold: soil vapor and contaminaled groundwater; that of 100 samplings only 1 indicated 0.3 parts per billion (ppb) above detection limit for MTBE . That based on groundwater and soil vapor sampling and analysis, there are no health risks on the proposed site associated with release from the nearby gas stations In response to the City Council Members, Mr. Johnson provided further clarification, noting the fOllowing: . That the 0.3 ppb detection in the one sample could have been an anomaly; that all samples were typical samples of what would have been proposed for any development site . ThaI plume is the gasoline constiluents that are actually dissolved in groundwater and that are detectable in the groundwater; that the plumes associated with each gas station are confined within close proximity of gas station tanks . That Well No. 120 is utilized on demand, not utilized 100% of the time By of a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Linda Bradley (CEO and Managing Director of Southwest Healthcare Systems) and Mr. Scott Crane (Executive Director of Development for Riverside County for Universal Health Services) presented a detailed overview of the proposed project with particular emphasis on design and site plan; clarified that Universal Health Services, Inc. is one of the nation's largest and most respected health care management companies, operating acute care hospital, behavioral health facilities, and ambulatory and radiation centers nationwide; advised that Southwest Healthcare Syslem is comprised of Inland Valley and Rancho Springs Medical Centers; and informed the City Council that HKS has been ranked as the world's fifth largest architectural firm that has garnered over 110 design award. Proceeding with the presentation, Ms. Bradley noted the following: . That the Question of need for a hospital would appear to be universally accepted by the City and the community R:\Minutes\012406 13 I . That the proposed site encompasses a total of 35.5 acres sufficient to design a hospital campus large enough to meet the needs of the City of T emecula . That multiple community meetings were scheduled to address the community concems . That as a result of these meetings, the project was designed with placement features, landscaping, etc. to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts posed by the project COMMUNITY CONCERNS I . Distance to residences o Moved buildings as far south on the project site as possible - toward the highway . Light pollution o Downward casting parking lot lights o Non-reflective, tinted glass on all windows . Construction traffic on De Portola o Construction traffic will be restricted off De portola and will only enter off State Route 79 South . . Noise o EIR has studied and addressed this concem . Closing Inland Valley or Rancho Springs o Plans are to expand those facilities and even with those expansions, the proposed hospital is needed o That Inland Valley was initially intended to function as a skilled-nursing facility, not intended to function as a hospilal o That Rancho Springs was buill as two-story hospital; that plans for construction are to build out laterally to expand over the parking lot versus up because of seismic safety restrictions . Height and View from residences o Expansive (over 46') landscaping and fenced horse trail around the north and west perimeters around the site o Oriented upper floors of the hospital o Balanced the height of lhe Medical Office Buildings with the height of the hospital . Landscape Buffer Zone . UHS Hospitals - design evolution - best demonstrated practice o Spring Valley Hospital o George Washington University Hospital o Centennial Hills Hospital . Regulatory Compliance . Patient eare . Patient Safety . Employee Safety . Facility Security . Customer Considerations . Community Satisfaction . Aesthetic Considerations I R:\Minutes\012406 14 I I I In response to the City Council Members, Ms. Bradley further clarified the following: . That the 90-foot distance from nurses stations to patient rooms is a regulatory compliance; that lowering the floors in height and retaining the same amount of beds would require spreading the building out which would move patients from the center core of services - time and distance matters when delivering patient care; that by spreading out the building, more bed towers, than those proposed, would be necessary by build out if the same number of patient beds were applied to this project . That if the towers were lowered, a complete redesign would be required which would create a project delay - redesign, CEOA process restarted, restart with Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development - minimum delay 21/2 years . That healthcare would be compromised if the proposed project design were not approved and a redesign would require a lateral expansion versus vertical in the following way: o Greater distances/time to respond to patients/patient services . that if the proposed site were double the acreage, the hospital design would not be any different from what is being proposed . that multiple types of jobs would be anticipated as a result of this project - approximately 600 jobs; that ancillary jobs would as well be expected as a result of this project In response to Council Member Edwards, Mr. Dave Prusha, architect who worked on the proposed project and representing HKS, advised that the numerous design awards HKS has received vary from functionality to aesthetics to design/construction to project management, etc. Mr. Prusha confirmed that the proposed design will be the best design (functionality/aesthetics) for the site of discussion and parameters. At 9:08 P.M. a short recess was taken and the Council reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Al this time, the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project: Robert MacHale Gloria Smith Temecula T emecula representing the Califomia Nurses Association Brad Stormon Nicole Stormon Kenneth Ray Temecula Temecula Temecula representing the Santiago Ranchos Homeowners Association A. Evan Harbottle Paul Gupta Neal Ziff Temecula T emecula Temecula The above-mentioned speakers spoke in opposition to the proposed project for the following reasons: . that the potential 21/2 year delay time because of a possible redesign may not be accurate in light of a recent action taken by Govemor Schwarzenegger R:\Minutes\012406 15 I I I . that the proposed helipad has too many trees around it . thaI a redesign of the hospital be explored; that the shape of the Red Cross be explored for the hospital . that the California Nurses Association (CNA) does not oppose this project; that the CNA does not support a public process where essential information has not been disclosed by the City which is required by law; that the City has not required UHS to mitigate significant impacl on local traffic and air quality; that the City's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has acknowledged that the proposed project will cause significant impact to air quality and traffic congestion; that the EIR does emit mitigation measures to mitigate these impacts; that paying fees to Riverside County will not mitigate significant congestion on SR 79, on Redhawk Parkway, and Margarita Road . that the hospital will cause the City to exceed air quality standards . that the City is required by CEQA to use best efforts to determine and disclose all it reasonably can with regard to MTBE groundwater plume . that he (Mr. Stormon) has contacted lhe City Council with regard to this project at least two or three times with no response; that he has contacted UHS, having left six/seven phone messages, with no response; that he would be concerned with noise pollution, lighting, and traffic; that he would request the construction of a wall around his residence; thaI traffic on Pio Pico will increase and will impact his residence . that the setback distance from his residence/property and the hospital is 300 feet In response to the Mayor Pro Tem Washington, Mr. Stormon reiterated that the only communication from the City was from Senior Planner Papp and lhat his attorney sent emails to the City Council and nobody has responded. City Attorney Thorson acknowledged receiving an email from Best Best and Krieger (Mr. Starman's attorney) and advised that he had spoken on two occasions with Mr. Salazar as had Mr. Curley and that he had replied to the email. For security purposes, Planning Director Ubnoske clarified that the City does require a certain amount of illumination on a property regardless of the use. With regard to noise pollution, Ms. Ubnoske noted that the overriding consideration simply will pertain to the helipad, not noise associated with the use of the hospital. Council Member Edwards further stated that lighting must adhere to lhe Mount Palomar Ordinance to which Deputy City Manager Thomhill noted that a lighting plan must be prepared. . That a block wall along De Portola Road and Pio Pico Road would significantly reduce the noise impacts from the helipad . That the EIR does not ~"",~Uy describe the project, does not analyze all responsible and foreseeable impacts, improperly defers mitigation, and does not mitigale to the extenl feasible . That a majority of resident concems remain unaddressed - increased traffic on Pio Pico due to the De Portola Road hospital entrance; that a dedicated right-hand turn lane is needed on Margarita Road (southbound) to De Portola Road; that a bridge crossing the flood control channel should be constructed at Dartolo Road, giving access to the hospital and easing the load on the De Portola entrance and reducing surface traffic in the immediate area; that emergency access from SR 79 south should be a direct access; that Dona Lynora Road should be a full traffic light controlled intersection with a controlled left-hand tum into the hospital R:lMinutes\012408 16 I . That the residents are not opposed to the hospital but the configuration of it and its impact on the residents . That lhe massive siZe of the proposed project in the area of discussion (35 acres) would be of concern; that the height of the proposed structure (106') would be a concern . That the Planning Commissioners expressed concerns with this project . That a multi-story parking garage was never considered For Mr. Gupta. Mayor Pro Tem Washington advised that Council Members Comerchero and Naggar served on the Temecula Hospital Subcommittee. . That the applicant chose to purchase this property at a premium price and to proceed with complete architectural plans knowing the General Plan restrictions imposed on the commercial area . That it is inexcusebable thaI the City allowed this corporation to push these issues to this point, compromising lhe quality of life of the residents . That lhe residents did their due diligence, the General Plan currently permits one- to two-story buildings; that this project will direclly affect the values of the properties as well as impact the entire community At this time. the following individuals spoke in support of the proposed project: . Dr. Mark Spicer neurosu rgeon . Dr. Russell Hatt Rancho Springs Emergency Department . Roger Ziemer Temecula I . Joan Sparkman Temecula . Alice Sullivan Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce . Dr. Larry Boggman Temecula . Jacob Ci nlron T emecula . Dr. Ed Pillar . Mark Nelson T emecula . Peggy Christensen Nuevo Southwest Healthcare System - choose not to speak . Dr. Yara Gorski Murrieta was no longer in attendance . Atalanta Olito . Ginny Ince Murrieta choose not to speak . Teresa Fleege Canyon Lake . Danny Whipkey F allbrook was no longer in attendance . Michael Murphy Canyon Lake . Teri Waites Temecula . Dennis Frank Economic Development Corporalion of Southwest California . Barry Thorfinnson Temecula . David Whitcomb Lake Elsinore was no longer in attendance . Renata Whitcomb Lake Elsinore was no longer in attendance . George Cocaine, Jr. Murrieta choose not to speak . Dee Lefebre Winchester I . Joann Pickard Temecula was no longer in attendance . Jim Fen! Murrieta . Pam Johnson R:\MinLltes\012406 17 I I I . Debbie Par1<er . Katie DiDonato . Robert Heckler . Patricia Harvey . Shannon Weidauer . Linda Maxwell . Linda Frazier . Ralph Millare . Ken Sitarski . Tom Gavaghan . Sue Dowis . Angela Bar1<er . Diana Lewis . Mike Fogie . Leah Patterson . Kim Davis . Ramona Delaney . Pamela Divan . Stacy Sweeney . Rick Meyer . Sue Wildgoose . Carrie Pedersen . Wayne Hall . Tom Julian . Brent Jacobsen . David Cruz Temecula Murrieta Murrieta Temecula Temecula T emecula T emecula choose not to speak was no longer in attendance Murrieta Corona Riverside Temecula choose not to speak Temecula Murrieta Lake Elsinore was no longer in attendance Wildomar Temecula Murrieta Murrieta Temecula Temecula T emecula T emecula A1ta Loma was no longer in attendance was no longer in attendance The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project for the following reasons: . That a vertical structure is the more efficient way to deliver emergency care to patients . That patient safety is very important to the Joint Commission (entity that accredits hospitals) . That decreasing the height/size of the towers will increase patient risk by increasing response time . That the personal interest of some should not be permitted to stop the construction of a hospital which would provide considerable benefits to the entire community . That current land zoning would permit certain commercial enterprises which would far exceed the traffic volumes identified by the hospital . That the City Council's decision with regard to this project must be made based on a majority . That the City has managed its growth well; that the need for a major medical facility is long overdue; that such a facility will provide economic benefits to the community; that the City and its outlining region can no longer rely on medical facilities outside the immediate service area; that in the event of a major earthquake or other catastrophe, access to the hospitals in Murrieta or Wildomar may not be available At this time, City Cler1< Jones advised that she had received a petition (apprOXimately 1,200 signatures) in support of the hospital, noting that copies were forwarded to the City COuncil Members. R:\MIOUteS\012406 18 I I I In response to Mayor Pro Tem Washington, Ms. Sullivan advised that an organized survey of the Chamber membership reflected support of the projecl, noting lhat not one opposing call was received. . That the proposed landscaping will block the majority of the hospital view for the majority of the Los Ranchitos homeowners . That successful rescuer actions at the scene of a sudden cardiac collapse are time critical . That even with the potential construction of olher hospitals in surrounding areas, the proposed hospital will still not meet the regional need at completion . That it would be imperative to construct a hospital that would ease accessibility to elderly . That the other three proposed hospilals that may be built in surrounding areas require capital for construction to be completed . That the proposed project will have a beneficial economic impact to the local economy . That the proposed project will as well create an employment multiplier (1.4 mulliplier) . That currently scheduled surgeries are being rescheduled due to no beds being available . That there is no significant environmenlal impact from the MTBE . That the California Nurses Association is currently in contractual negotialions with UHS . That UHS has functioned in this Valley; that UHS has been a good neighbor and a good business partner . That the facility must be designed to meet the maximum patient care needs but as well must meet the needs of the employees of the hospital . That this hospital must be built for the future - for our children . That Mission Ambulance would be willing to wor1< with AMR to wor1< with the hospitals and the community to develop zones/areas that will be silent sensitive. REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT At the time, Ms. Bradley noted the following in response to public comments as well as City Council Members' questions: . That not only is the design for this hospilal complete but also the design delail was completed last year; that these plans have been submitted to the Slate of Califomia in an effort to prevent further delay; that UHS was willing to lake the risk of submitting the plans to the State prior to City Council approval . That UHS was fUlly aware of the restrictions and what exceptions and variances were needed but the overriding concem was to design a hospilal that would wor1< for the patients . That UHS would not object to the imposition of a condition requesting the submittal of a comprehensive lighting plan to the Planning Department to ensure mitigation on the neighboring properties . That UHS would be willing to discuss the issue of constructing a block wall on either Mr. Stonnon's property or the hospital property; that, as per the site plan, there will be 20' of landscaping from the street followed by 18' of horse trail followed by 8' of more landscaping prior to reaching the white picket fence; that within the fence boundary, there would be additional landscaping interior to the property . ThaHhe noise levels of the hospital will be monitored; that if these levels were exceeded once in operation, the hospital will be required to mitigate to issues - Mitigation Measure M-1 imposed upon the applicant - once the facility is fully operational, the applicant R:\Minutes\012406 19 I I I would be obligated per this mitigation measure 10 complete a noise study; that if the noise levels are above a given level, the applicant would be obligated to mitigate those issues and file a report with the City 10 demonstrate mitigation; that Mitigation Measure A-1 - prior to pulling a building permit, the applicant musl present a lighting design and study demonstrating no impact on the neighbors Ms. Stetson confirmed for City Council Members Edwards and Washington thaI the only unmitigated noise impact would be from the helipad (helicopters). In response to Council Member Comerchero, Mr. Slormon reiterated that his overriding concerns are light. traffic, and noise and, therefore, being of the opinion that a block wall would mitigate light and most of the noise. Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that it would not be prudent to build a block wall prior to determining if any issues will arise. With regard to the lighting concerns, Mr. Thornhill reiterated that the applicant must adhere to the Mount Palomar Lighting requirements (low sodium lights). In response to Council Member Naggar, City Attorney Thorson advised that the previously mentioned Mitigation Measures (conditions) are a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for lhe EIR; that if the project were adopted, the conditions will be a part of lhe resolution certifying the EIR; that a condition in the conditions of approval requires these conditions to be met; that the Mitigation Monitoring Plan reflects the individual responsible for monitoring and timeframe of the monitoring and its frequency - a plan not only to impose mitigation measures but to ensure compliance. With regard to lighting, Mr. Thorson referenced Mitigation Measure A-2 - all windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall consist of glazed windows. At this time, the public hearing was closed. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION In light of the complexity of this project, Council Member Naggar commended Senior Planner Papp on a job well done as well as the Planning Department. Discussing the consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Mr. Naggar noted that such amendments would be considered if the conslruction were absolutely needed - this hospital is needed within the City and, therefore, he could support a General Plan Amendment for this hospital. With regard to the lighting and noise issues, the City Council addressed these important issues. Mr. Naggar noted that studies have indicated that there will be no additional impacts by virtue of constructing a hospital versus commercial use; clarified that this is not a City project; that the City does not have a view policy within the City; lhat there is a future need for this hospital within this region; that this project will create 600 jobs which will lessen impact on the freeways; and that a lawsuit will only raise the cost of construction and raise the cost of healthcare and no one will benefit solely for a political purpose. Readdressing concerns raised by Council Member Naggar, Council Member Edwards commended the City on its efforts to keep the City's circulation flowing; noted that the proposed hospital project will generate less traffic than a comparable commercial or office project at the same location; that if necessary, access may be limited off De Portola to emergency vehicles only and that the City Council may consider that issue; that if other improvements were necessary to the intersection at Margarita Road and SR 79 South, those could be made at a R:\Minutes\012406 20 I I I fulure time; and lhat because of the need for this hospital, Mrs. Edwards spoke in support of this project. Hoping that State approval for the hospital will not take as long as anticipated, Council Member Comerchero stated that the City has been given a rare opportunity to fulfill this need; noted that this project will be for the greater good; and, therefore, expressed his support of the construction of this hospital. Concurring with his colleagues' comments, Mayor Pro Tem Washington noted that a hospital is gravely needed in this community. Having addressed the height issue, Mr. Washington could not justify the sacrifice being made by lowering the height of the towers (residents' views versus efficiency of the hospital); suggested that staff explore the adoption of a Noise Ordinance; noted that light issue is measurable and, therefore, could be addressed if exceeded; and stated that most of the traffic concerns were addressed, expressing his desire to have no access on De Portola Road or Pio Pico Road and that if that were to occur, the City Council will readdress that at a later time; with regard to the MTBE concern, viewed that issue as a manufactured concern. In closing, having known Ms. Bradley and Mr. Crane for many years, Mr. Washington viewed both individuals as individuals with integrity and stated that, therefore, if issues of concern were to arise, they would be addressed. MOTION: Council Member Naggar moved to approve recommendation nos. 21.1, 21.2, 21.4, and 21.5 with amending Condition of Approval No. 91 for the Development Plan, as noted on page 10. The motion was seconded by Council Member Comerchero and electronic vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Mayor Roberts who was absent. City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 06-01. MOTION: Council Member Naggar moved to approve recommendation no. 21.3. The motion was seconded by Council Member Comerchero and electronic vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Mayor Roberts who was absent. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 22 Economic DeveloDment Deoartment Monthlv ReDort No additional comment. 23 Public Works DeDartment Monthlv ReDort No additional comment. 24 Police Deoartment Monthlv Reoort No additional comment. 25 Buildina and Safetv Deoartment Monthlv Reoort No additional comment. R:\Minutes1012406 21 I I I 26 Plannino Deoartment Monthlv Reoort No additional comment. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No additional comment. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no actions to report from Closed Session but noted that any final action with regard to Closed Session Item No.2 (Educational Campus Project) would be brought to the City Council for final decision in open session. ADJOURNMENT At 12:17 A.M. , the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session with the regular session commencing al 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: /~LJL Susan;W: '~nes, MMC / CityCI~! ~ "- R:\Minutes\012406 22 . ATTACHMENT NO. 16 JANUARY 24, 2006 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 43 II Approvals City Attorney Direclor of Finance City Manager '/(.; CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Debbie Ubnoske. Director of Planning DATE: January 24. 2006 SUBJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital (Planning Applications 04-0462 (General Plan Amendment), 05-0302 (Zone Change), 04-0463 (Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit), and 04-0571 (Tentative Parcel Map)) PREPARED BY: Emery Papp. Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL 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 CO (liS IDE RATIONS, 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. 959~80~01 THROUGH 959~80~04 AND 959~80~07 THROUGH 959~80~10 (PA04- 0462, PA05~302, PA04~463, PA04~571) 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (S) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO-STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATE L Y 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959~SO'{)01 THROUGH 959.{)SO.{)04 AND 959.{)SO.{)07 THROUGH 959.{)SO.{)10 (PA04- 0462) 3. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 06- 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.{)SO.{)01 THROUGH 959.{)80.{)04 AND 959'{)S~07 THROUGH 959.{)SO.{)10 (PA05'{)302) 4. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06- 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 40S,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN S,OOO 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 NOS. 959.{)SO.{)01 THROUGH 959.{)SO.{)04 AND 959.{)SO.{)07 THROUGH 959.{)SO.{)10 (PA04- 0463) 5. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULAAPPROVING 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) BACKGROUND: On June 30. 2004. Universal Hea~h Services of Rancho Springs,lnc. 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 Pico 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 (Council Member Comerchero and Council Member 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 Estales 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 projecl 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: o Traffic and circulation (access points) o Building height and views o Compatibility with residences o Noise o Helipad (location and number of flights) On April 4. 2005. the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this project. Staff received comment letters (Attachment 16) regarding the I nitial 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 Qualitv Act (CEQA) Issuell o A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate for the project o There are analytical gaps in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) o A Water Supply Assessment is required and has not been prepared o Mitigation Measures need to be more definite and certain o Lack of traffic impact analysis on Pio Pico o Lack of analysis concerning impacts to equestrian uses in the area o Noise sources, noise impacts. and noise mitigation is not adequately addressed o Lack of analysis concerning visual and aesthetic impacts o Mitigation is required for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat due to bridge construction (Phase II Dartolo Road access) o Additional Burrowing Owl studies will be required Traffic/Circulation Issues o Increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses o DePortola Road should not be four-lanes wide o Access from DePortola is not wanted by area residents, if required by City it should be gated for emergency access only o Access from Dartola should be in Phase I of the project o All of Pio Pico south of DePortola should be vacated o Emergency room should be relocated Noise Issues o I ncreased traffic will lead to increased noise levels o Helipad and helicopter use will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses o Provide sound walls to mitigate traffic noise Aesthetics o The hospital towers are too tall and not consistent in the area; views will be lost o Windows will reflect too much light and create glare Hvdroloov and Groundwater o Due to increased runoff resutting from this project, a storm water plan should be prepared o Contamination from existing underground storage tanks may pose a threatto groundwater if the contamination plume moves. Once paved or built upon. this will be difficult to track. The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt of these comments and recommended that an 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 the EIR for the hospital project. It was determined that the 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. November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting On November 16, 2005, a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Commission to presentthe comprehensive Temecula Regional Hospital Project, the associated applications that will require City Council approval, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was preparedforthis project, and to take public testimony concerning the proposal and the EIR. The Planning Commission was informed by the EIR consultant and staff thatthe responses to written comments on the EIR had not yet been completed, and the Planning Commission determined that a continuance would be in order to review the entire record prior to making a recommendation to the City CounCil. It was determined that the public hearing would be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 7, 2005. It was also recommended that the City Council meeting, originally scheduled for November 22,2005, be continued to December 13, 2005. Chairman Mathewson then opened the hearing for public comment. A total of 46 people submitted Requestto Speak forms. Of these, 39 people spoke, 29 in favor and 10 against the proposed project. During the public testimony portion of the public hearing, new evidence was presented with regard to potential leaking underground storage tanks and the potential for these to contaminate groundwater and an existing Rancho Califomia Water District well site adjacent to the project site. The California Environmental Quality Act requires jurisdictions to evaluate the impacts of a project on the environment, and not the impacts ofthe environment on the project. This pre-existing condition has been monitored by the State of California and it is the sole responsibility of the owners of the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks to remediate the conditions. However, because this issue was raised in a public forum, staff evaluated the potential threat of groundwater contamination beneath the site. Staff contacted the Rancho California Water District and verified that a domestic water well adjacent to the proposed hospital site is currently in production and has never tested positive for contaminants commonly found in groundwater that has been contaminated by gasoline. As a resu~, staff does not consider this to be an environmental impact that should be addressed in the EIR. Staff and the EIR consultant have prepared responses to Agency comments and general public comments. CEQA requires local jurisdictions to respond in writing to Agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR no less than 10 days prior to the City Council's certification of the EIR. The City sent written responses to the Public Agency comments on November 12, 2005. Under CEQA, the City is not required to provide written responses to general public comments, or comments that were received after the Public Review period has closed. The City, however, has chosen to respond to all comments received up to and at the public hearing held on November 16, 2005. The responses to comments are included as an attachment to this staff report. The responses to comments clearly demonstrate that the EIR and the Technical Appendices have satisfactorily addressed all of the concerns raised by Agencies and the general public through the public review process. While some of the commenting public may disagree with the analyses contained in the EIR, staff believes that with the responses to comments, the EIR is sound and meets the State CEQA Guidelines requirements for disclosure of public information. The EIR states thatthere will be Unavoidable Significant Impacts created by this projectthat cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. State Law, in particular the California Environmental Quality Act, permits a local jurisdiction to approve a project having Unavoidable Significant Impacts, provided the local jurisdiction discloses this information in the EIR and can make the findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration. These Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration are contained in the Staff Report of record for the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit A of Attachment 2 which allows the City Council to render a decision to approve the applications putforth by Universal Hea~h Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.and to certify the EIR. Issues Raised at the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing Phasinq There was some confusion regarding the phasing of this project because phasing has been identified in three different ways: for the Project, for construction, and for traffic related mitigation. To clarify these issues, the project is broken down into five project Phases. The construction schedule, however, is broken out into three phases. The first construction phase will include the project's Phase 1A and will consist of grading, clearing, and constructing Medical Office Building (MOB) NO.2 and surface parking. This phase is expected to last 10 months. The second construction phase will include Phase 1 B and will include the one-story hospital, six- story bed tower, and additional surface parking. This phase is expected to last 14 months. The third and final construction phase will consist of project Phases, II, III, IV and V and will include the second hospital bed tower, MOB No.1, Cancer center, Fitness center, and additional surface parking. This final construction phase is expected to last 12 months. Traffic mitigation has been put into two general phases that are defined in the conditions of approval for this project. For traffic mitigation purposes Phase 1 is defined as the construction of a 170-bed hospital with 80,000 square foot medical office space. For traffic mitigation purposes Phase 2 is defined as the expansion to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional SO ,000 square foot medical office space. Traffic Residents that live on DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road expressed concerns that the project as proposed, with an access off of DePortola Road, will significantly impact the carrying capacity and Level of Service on these roads with the additional vehicle trips generated by this project. The findings from the traffic study that was prepared for this project were restated by the Public Works Director which indicate that Level of Service on both roads will remain below LOS "D." Gas Plume An expert witness testified that a gas plume has been migrating from three gas stations in proximity of the hospital project site, and this has been known for years. This issue was not included in the EIR. In the opinion of the expert witness, this potential environmental impact must be evaluated in the EIR. Alternative Sites Public speakers inquired as to what other sites the applicant had investigated prior to purchasing the subject property. The applicant responded thatthey had investigated two other sites, but the subject property had best met their needs. Public speakers also inquired why sites other than the Corona Family properties had not been considered in the Alternatives section of the EIR. Specifically, two City-owned sites were mentioned, the Diaz Road/Dendy Parkway (Campus) site, and a site generally located at the south west corner of Highway 79 South and Interstate 15. December 7, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission meeting which was originally continued to December 7, 2005 was convened and once again continued to allow the EI R consuttant and staff to have additional time to complete the responses to the extensive comments presented at the November 1S, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. As a result, the Planning Commission approved a motion to continue this item to January 5, 200S. January 5, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission was presented with the responses to general public comments and information to respond to questions and issues raised at the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The issues discussed and clarified at the January 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting include the following: Traffic Staff re-evaluated some of the traffic impacts associated with the approval of this project. Originally the City felt that providing a "second phase" connection to Margarita Road via Dartolo Road would be a good alternative that may lessen concerns regarding the project's driveway access on to De Portola Road. The EIR analyzed the Dartolo Road access alternative and found that the connection actually creates a significant traffic impact. The traffic impact is an operational problem created by adding additional turning movements to the Dartolo Road/ Margarita Road intersection. The Dartolo Road / Margarita Road intersection is too close to the Margarita Road / Route 79S intersection and there is not enough vehicle stacking distance in the Margarita Road left-turn pockets to accommodate the additional project turning movements. The Dartolo Road connection to Margarita Road would resutt in the intersection's break down and forces the signal's removal at an earlier date. The EIR has clearly shown that the De Portola Road driveway access has no significant traffic impacts. For these reasons staff recommended that the condition of approval for the Dartolo Road access to Margarita Road be removed. By removing this condition of approval, further biological studies will not be required to facilitate this connection because the area will be avoided. Furthermore, staff concurs that there is no need for traffic mitigation on Pio Pico. Staff believes that the traffic consultant's observation that Pio Pico would not serve as a route for Hospital access is correct. To mitigate the concern that traffic may be encouraged to use Pio Pico, the City required that the DePortola Road access does not align with Pio Pico and has been moved to approximately 700 feet to the east of Pio Pico. The estimated traffic volumes that would be added to local roads as a resu~ of this project would not cause the Level of Service for Pio Pico to exceed the City's goal of Level of Service "D". Gas Plume An investigation was completed on the subject property that included testing soil conditions at ten locations on the subject property. These locations were selected because they are within the proposed footprints of the hospital and medical office buildings. The tests checked the soil vapor at approximate depths of five feet at each location. The resu~s of this test show that there was no evidence of soil contamination due to gases escaping from the plume and making their way into the soil. The soil tests did not confirm whether or not the groundwater at this location is contaminated with constituents found in gasoline and other petroleum products. However, the Rancho California Water District, who owns and operates a domestic well adjacent to the site, prepared a Water Supply Assessment for this project, was asked to comment on the original Mitigated Negative Declaration, and again was asked to comment on the EIR, and has not indicated thatthe domestic well adjacent to the subject site is in danger of contamination. Rancho California Water District has verified that the most recent test samples from this well have not detected constituents commonly lound in groundwater that has been contaminated by gasoline. Alternative Sites Two additional sites were discussed by public speakers at the November 16, 2005 Planning Comm ission meeting as potential locations for the proposed hospital. The first is a 32-acre property west of Diaz Road and north of Dendy Parkway which is owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of T emecula. The Agency has entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement for the sale of this property to the AGK Group, LLC for the development of a mixed-use project that includes a higher education center, approximately 280 apartment units, of which 50 are reserved for affordable housing, retail, a conference facility, and a child care facility. The City also has a development agreement in place with the developer of this project and also has approved plans for the project. The project is in the building plan check phase at the present. This site is, therefore, not available for the hospital. A second site is a property west of 1-15 at 79S, which was purchased for the sole purpose of upgrading the 1-15/79S interchange. The property is approximately 30 acres, but less than 20 acres is out of the flood zone. The property will have limited access after the interchange work is done. The property was purchased with regional transportation funds and the City has a contractual obligation to use the property for the interchange improvements. This site is, therefore, not available for the hospital. The applicant also presented information to support the height of the proposed five- and six-story hospital bed towers. The applicant asserted that based on the number of proposed beds needed in the City, the proposed design is the most efficient to protect the life and safety of patients. The Planning Commission struggled with the height issue of the proposed bed towers, but ultimately passed a motion to recommend the City Council support the project as proposed. The applicant contends thatthe bed towers cannot be redesigned to a lower height without sacrificing patient care and without jeopardizing its compliance with State regulatory requirements and that any reconsideration of the design would result in additional delays of up to two years in providing necessary hospital services for the community. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to move forward with the current proposal, noting that the height is an issue and should be discussed further by the City Council. PROJECT ANALYSIS A complete analysis of the project impacts and the Planning Applications is contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report of record for November 16, 2005, which is included in this Agenda Packet. The EIR states that this project will have Unavoidable Significant Impacts and, therefore, appropriate findings and a statement of Overriding Considerations must be made. The Statement of Overriding Consideration and the findings to support this statement are found in the Findings section of this Agenda Report. 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, with the exception of short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts; noise impacts related to helicopter flights; and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration has been prepared. On January 5, 2006 the Planning Commission recommended 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 Planning Commission has further recommended that the City Council review and accept the responses to comments as adequately addressing the concerns raised by reviewing agencies and the general public, and recommends thatthe City Council ofthe City ofTemecula certify the EIR for this project and approve the following: RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL 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-OS0-001 THROUGH 959-OS0-004 AND 959-OS0-007 THROUGH 959-OS0-010 (PA04- 0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (S) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO-STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS 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-OS0-001 THROUGH 959-OS0-004 AND 959-OS0-007 THROUGH 959-OS0-010 (PA04- 0462) ORDINANCE NO, 06- 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-9 (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-OS0-001 THROUGH 959-OS0-004 AND 959-OS-007 THROUGH 959-OS0-010 (PA04- 0462) RESOLUTION NO. 06- 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 40S,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 RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENT A TIVE 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) 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 Hosp~al have been considered and rejected in favor of the Temecula Regional Hospital. c. 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." 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 T emecula 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 ofthe 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 17.040.010E) 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 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 necessaryforthe demand ofthe 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 ofthe 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 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 potentiallysignificant 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 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. 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 heatth, 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 Departmentwill review the construction plans for compliance with applicable building and fire codes. e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of Section 17.1 0.020.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. 5. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F) a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City ofTemecula 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 T emecula 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 weWare. The overall development of the land has been designed forthe protection of the public heatth, safety, and general weWare, 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 ParcellTract 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, orthe 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, w~h 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 heatth 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 w~h 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. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Plan Reductions City Council Resolution 06-_ (EIR) City Council Resolution 06-_ (General Plan Amendment) City Council Ordinance No. 06-_ (Zone Change) City Council Resolution 06-_ (Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit) City Council Resolution 06-_ (Tentative Parcel Map) Draft Environmental Impact Report Response to Comment Letters received on Draft EIR Authorization of Shortened Public Review of Draft EIR Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Initial Study for Draft EIR Planning Commission Minutes, January 5, 2006 (Available Under Separate Cover) Planning Commission Memo of Continuation, December 7, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes, December 7, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes, November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Agenda Packet November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes, April 20, 2005 Planning Commission Agenda Packet, April 20, 2005 Planning Commission Agenda Packet, April 6, 2005 ATTACHMENT NO. 17 JANUARY 5, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 44 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5. 2006 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Pfanning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:30 p.m., on Thursday, January 5, 2006, 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 Harter led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter. Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson, Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Referencing a recent accident. Mr, Robert MacHale, French Valley. stated that the corner of. Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos is a dangerous comer at night, advising that the corner is not property lit; that the comer lacks yellow blinking lights; and that the comer is too Sharp for the posted speed limit. In response to Mr, MacHale's concern, Chairman Mathewson suggested that he contact the Department of Public Works. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1,1 Approve the Minutes of November 16, 2005, 1.2 Approve the Minutes of December 7, 2005, MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained on Item No. 1,2. Chairman Mathewson advised the audience that any comments regarding (tern No. 2 (Temecula Hospital) be limited to new items that were not addressed at the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission hearing, Chairman Mathewson also requested that speakers observe the time limit. respect those who speak, and refrain from making any comments. R:\MinulesPC\010506 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from December 7, 2005 2 Plan nino ,Anolication No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment. PA05-0302 Planned Develooment Overlav. PA04-0463 Condilional Use Permit and Oevelooment Plan. PAQ4- 0571 Parcel MaD. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General Plan Amendment Zone Chanqe. Conditional Use Permit. Develooment Plan and a Tentative Parcel MaD to construct a 566.160 square foot hosQital, includino medical office buildinps on 35.31 acres. located on North side of Hiohway 79 South and south of DePortola Road. and aooroximatelv 700 feet west of Maroarita Road Senior Planner Papp provided the Planning Commission with a staff report (of written material). Responding to a question raised by Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that an access point mid-block between OePortola Road and Highway 79 South has been discussed, but that it was not found to be a viable option due to the fact that the City, nor the applicant of this project, owns or controls the property in question; and that it is not designated on the Circulation Element to have a roadway in that vicinity. Senior Planner Papp offered the following additional information: . That medical office NO.2 will be a four-story. building . That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified the Corona property as an alternative site for the proposed hospital. For the Commission, Director of Public Hughes noted that the road portion south of DePortola Road would be identified as an offer of dedication, but has not been accepted by the City for use; and that it would not be considered a private street, (but a paper offering to be a public street) should the City elect to accept the offer of dedication, Referencing potential leaking underground storage tanks, Senior Planner Papp stated that a consultant will be addressing the issue and that no plume was found on the proposed site. Per PowerPoint Presentation. representing P & D consultant, Ms. Laura Stetson, highlighted responses to comments as well as comments that were received after the 30-day public review period of October 28, 2005 (of written material in staffs report), noting the following: . Noise of sirens . Hazardous waste operations from the hospital, . Groundwater issues Mr. Dan Johnson, representing Environmental Business Solutions, offered the following information with regard to groundwater issues raised by the public, per a PowerPoint Presentation: . That after carefully reviewing available information regarding potential leaking underground storage tanks, it was determined that there would be slight groundwater contamination on the project site R:\MiflutesPC\010506 2 . That potential impacts would be limited to groundwater, but that there is no direct data that would indicate that there would be, at this time, impacts in the groundwater at the site in question . That low concentrations of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, was detected . That groundwater would not be used as a drinking water source for the proposed hospital . That potential issues would be vapors rising off the impacted groundwater, up through the soil, and possibly up to the ground surface and into the building . That vapors could possibly rise up through the soil column, off the impacted groundwater which in turn could affect a potential receptor . That after measuring MTBE concentrations and gasoline additives, it was detenmined that no MTBE and no gasoline constituents were detected . That in conclusion, there would be no health risk associated with the release of soil vapors. In response to Chainman Mathewson's question, Mr. Johnson reiterated that there would be no definitive data that would indicate whether or not there would be any MTBE in the groundwater; that oil companies have a responsibility and obligation to the Water Quality Control Board to investigate the full extent of MTBE in groundwater; and that whether there is MTBE in the groundwater or not, there would be no potential risk or threat, advising that there would be no complete exposure pathway but for the soil vapors. . That in conclusion a soil vapor survey was conducted; that the location of the soil vapor samples were located to assess the potential for migration and intrusion into the site from the MTBE plumes into the proposed site buildings; that no MTBE or gasoline constituents were detected; that, therefore, it would be unlikely that there would be any heatth risk associated with the release; and that if there were any impacts to the groundwater, it would be very slight. Mr. Tom Wright, licensed professional geologist, offered the follOwing comments: . That oil companies have put in recovery wells that would be located east to the subject site; that recovery wells would not be placed on the proposed site; that the wells would treat any contamination that could be in the groundwater; that all the concentrations at the proposed site have been declining over the last several years; and that remediation systems have been implemented, which will further decrease the levels. R\MinutesPC1010506 3 At this time, Ms. Stetson P & D consultant, continued with the responses to comments, highlighting the following: . Traffic . Cumulative traffic impacts . Change in neighborhood character, In closing, Senior Planner Papp infonmed the Planning Commission that staff received two additional e-mails and one letter, expressing opposition to the proposed project (at this time, Mr. Papp distributed the letters received by staff), Mr. Papp recommended that the Planning Commission accept the responses to the comment letters and recommended removal of the Condition of Approval related to Oartolo Road access; and recommended that the City Council approve the Planning Application for the proposed project; that if the Planning Commission were to concur with staff recommendation, staff would reverse the resolution and Condition of Approval regarding Dartolo Road access, prior to the City Council hearing of January 24, 2006. Per Powerpoint Presentation. Ms. Linda Bradley CEO and Managing Director of Southwest Heath Care System Services, provided responses to the issues related to the design of the facility raised at the hearing of November 16, 2005, as well as other questions, At this time, Ms. Bradley highlighted on the fOllowing: . Design decisions . Hospital healthcare today . Best practice design . Best demonstrated practice . Regulatory compliance . Patient care . Patient safety . Employee safety . Facility security . Customer considerations . Community satisfaction . Aesthetics considerations. Addressing comments made by the Planning Commission, Ms. Bradley noted the following: . That the hospital will be part of Phase I, but that Phase I will be split into 1a and 1b; that in order for the proposed hospital to be built, it would need an approval from the State which could take between 12 and 24 months; and that a medical office bUilding may be built without State approval . That a hospital does not generate ambulance runs; that ambulance runs are generated by the need of the community; that if the proposed hospital were approved. it would reduce the length of siren noises because ambulances would have a shorter distance to drive . That the hospital will hold regular disaster drills and will be working closely with Emergency Medical Service (EMS) agencies and Fire and Police Departments; that disaster drills will be held at regular required intervals; and that the drills will go through actual disaster scenarios and mock victims R:\MinutesPC\010506 4 . That the administration of the proposed hospital has never intended to make the proposed hospital a trauma center . That the hospital, as designed, would deliver the largest number of beds, built in the most affective design in the shortest time possible . That the cost of redesign would not be a primary concern for the applicant; that the primary concern for the applicant would be that the hospitallhealthcare needs be delivered to the community in the least amount of time . That any delays for the proposed project would be time and money, At this time, the Planning Commission took a six-minute recess. Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Ms. Stetson stated that there would be an average of two siren ambulance runs per day; that there would be an average of five to seven ambulance runs a week; and that the balance of those siren runs would not be using its sirens, At this time, the public hearing was opened, The following individuals spOke in suooort of the proposed project: . Ms, Atalanta Olito, Murrieta . Ms. Michelle Arrellano, Temecu/a . Mr. Bruce Barton, Riverside . Mr, David Cruz, Alta Loma . Ms. Ramona Delaney, Wjldomar . Ms. Pam Diran . Mr. Dennis Frank, Temecula . Mr. Roger Ziemer, Temecula . Ms. Jan Bates, Fallbrook . Mr. Brent Jacobsen, Temecula The above-mentioned individuals spoke in suooort of the proposed project for the following reasons; . That the community of Temecula is in great need for a hospital . That currently every patient that is transported by the 911 system would be transported out of the City of Temecula, resulting in Emergency Medical Service resources leaving the City . That horses that live in the adjacent community to the proposed project could be trained to become accommodating of noises such as helicopters and sirens . That the function and fonm of a hospital would be critical . That the hospital was designed for the community it serves R:lMinutesPCI010506 5 . That the City of Temecula has always addressed projects with a vision towards the future needs of the community, while balancing community impacts and the need for community services projecting 20 to 30 years out; and that the proposed project would be one of those projects that would need to be projected 30 to 40 years out . That there would be a specific community need for the project hospital to serve the entire region especially, the Redhawk and Vail Ranch community . That the proposed site has been planned for commerciallprofessionaVindustrial development for many years, it would not be conSidered rural . That the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) strongly supports the proposed project as presented for its specific needs and the services in the City of Temecula . That Emergency Medical Services will work with the hospital in lending assistance on how Code 3 responses could be used as an ambulance would approach the hospital. The following Individuals spoke in oooosition of the proposed project: . Ms. Gloria Smith . Ms. Nicole Stormon, Temecula . Mr. Brad Stormon, Temecula . Mr. Neal Zift, Temecula . Mr, Tom Hannum, Temecula . Mr, A. Evan Harbottle. Temecula . Mr, Paul Gupta, Temecula . Mr, Kenneth Ray, Temecula . Mr. Ricardo Echevema, Temecula . Mr. Don Brown, Temecula The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed project for the following reasons: . That the City errors in placing the burden of a health risk on the California Nurses Association (CNA) . That the City has failed to provide the public with information in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with regard to potential leaking underground storage tanks . That the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would require more than the reviewing of files or vapor studies . That as a matter of law, the City's statement of overriding consideration violates CEQA . That the handling of the proposed project has been irresponsible and showed signs of improprieties . That the manner in which the proposed project has been pushed through the system showed that the City is hiding issues that citizens have the right to know R:\MinutesPCI010506 6 . That if the City Council were truly looking out for the citizens of the City, it would have asked the administration of the hospital to look for property for a longer period of time . That to destroy a 40-year old neighborhood and way of life, to endanger families and animals, and to utilize staff with bad attitudes would show the bullying methods of the City . That the residents in the adjacent community were of the understanding that the bearming and landscaping separating the hospital project from DePortola Road and the association of residential neighborhoods, would be installed as part of Phase 1 . That the proposed hospital should be redesigned to a smaller configuration . That the hospital, as proposed. will generate immense negative impacts upon the neighborhoods of southern Temecula. Chairman Mathewson thanked the audience for their observance of the rules and regulations of the pubic hearing. In response to a comment made regarding City Council and staff, Chairman Mathewson stated that the City's planning staff has always demonstrated a high level of profeSSionalism and has done an outstanding job addressing all issues that have been raised by the public by providing information in the timeliest manner; and that the CiIIy Council has consistently demonstrated its commitment to the community, At this time, the Planning Commission took a five-minute recess. Ms. Bradley, representing Southwest Healthcare System, responded to two issues that were raised by speakers, noting the following: . That heavy landscaping will be installed around the perimeter of the site as part of Phase 1 . That the intent for Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center would be to expand. not close, Director of Public Works Hughes offered the following comments: . That Pio Pico Road was analyzed during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process . That the EIR analyzed the Dartolo Road access and found that the connection would actually create significant traffic impacts . That every impact reflected in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was either resolved, or will be resolved by the proposed project, and/or will be resolved by actively funded projects that the City will be undergoing . That it would be important to understand that the current zoning for the property site could have generated two to three times as many trips per day with another project. R:\MinutesPC\Q10506 7 .J At this time, the public hearing was closed. Commission Discussion Commissioner Guerriero stated that although he would be in favor of the proposed project, he would ask that the applicant consider reducing the height of the towers by redesigning the proposed hospital. Understanding the concerns of the opposing residents, Commissioner Telesio relayed his full support of the proposed project as presented. Echoing Commissioner Telesio's comment, Commissioner Harter stated that he, also, would be in full support of the proposed project as presented. Relaying his disappointment that the applicant did not take more time to address the concernS of adjacent residents with regard to height, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the following: . That his concern would be that there would be no guarantee that the proposed hospital would be built . That he would suggest postponing the second reading until the proposed project has been approved by the State. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeffs suggestion, City Attorney Thorson stated that postponing the second reading would result in the denial of building the medical office building until the second reading has been read, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that he would be in favor of the proposed project, but would request that the landscaping around the perimeter be installed as soon as possible to allow time for trees to grow. Relaying his support of the hospital project, Chainman Mathewson requested that the applicant explore the possibility of redesigning the hospital project with regard to the height of the proposed hospital, and that the applicant address this request with the City Council. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation which would include the recommendation to delete Dartolo Road access connection from the proposed project, Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aooroval. R:\MinutesPC\010506 8 .J PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTlnED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL 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 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-02 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 TW0-5TORY 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 AND959.o8D-007. THROUGH 959-08()" 010 (PA04-0402) R;\Minut_C\010506 9 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-03 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 (pD0-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDQ-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SITE GENERALLY 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-oa-007 THROUGH 959-0ao- 010 (PA04-0462) PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-04 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 HELIPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 40a,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 959-080-064 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 . R:\MinutesPCIOfOSOO 10 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-05 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) COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS In response to Commissioner Telesio's concern regarding Apis Road, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that he will have Code Enforcement address the situation. For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that he will have a Public Works Technician check the liming of the signalization at Rancho California Road and Margarita Road, Chairman Mathewson advised the Commission that he has submitted a Jetter of resignation, effective February 3, 2006. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time, ADJOURNMENT AI 10:15 p.m., Chairman Mathewson fonnally adjourned to Wednesday. Januarv 18. at 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers. 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, ~~/-L CHairman -- ~~~' ~y0 Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPClOI0506 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 18 DECEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\PJanning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 45 ... MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECUlA PlANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Corn mission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on Wednesday, December 7, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: Chiniaefl, PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Mr, Chris Donelli, Temecula, queried on the status of the proposed residential development surrounding the Vail Lake property. Referencing Mr. Donelli's query, Chairman Mathewson stated that he would need to contact the Counly for any status information regarding the proposed residential development surrounding the Vail Lake property, advising that the proposed property is out of the jurisdiction of the City, CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Cof/tfnued from November 2, 2005 Due to the applicant not being able to attend this meeting, staff requested that Item NO.1 be continued to the December 14, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue Item No, 1 to the December 14, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceotlon of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. 1 Plannino ~olication No. PA05-0064, a DeveloQment Plan. submitted bv Matthew Fapan. for a Compreh~nsive Sion Proaram for the Marq~lrita Crossin os shQQ.oino center on 5.56 acres, located on the southwest comer of Maroarita Road and Overland Drive Staff is requesting that Item No, 2 be continued to the December 14, 2005. Planning Commission. R:\MinutosPC\120705 to '- MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continued Item No.2 to the December 14, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote rellected approval with the exceDtion of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. 2 Plan nino Aoplication No. Plannin9 Aoolication Nos, PA05-G155 a Pedestrian Plan and Sipn Prooram. submitted bv Allen Robinson, on a 0.55 acre site for Butterfield Sauare, located at the southeast comer of Old Town Front Street and Third Street Continued from November 16, 2005 Staff is currenUy in the process of finalizing the responses to the general public and comment letters and therefore requested a continuance of Item No, 3 to the December 5, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue Item No.3 to the December 5, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voi911 vote reflected approval with the eXC8Dtlon 01 Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. 3 Plannino AooUcation No. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment. PA05-0302 Planned Develooment Overfav. PA04-G463 Conditional Use Permit and DeveloDment Plan. PA04- 0571 Parcel MaD. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General Plan Amendment. Zone Chanoe. Conditional Use Permit. DeveloDment Plan and a Tentative Parcel MaD to construct a 566.160 SQuare foot hosoital. ,includino medical office buildinps on 35.31 acres. located on North side of Hiohwav 79 South and south of OePortola Road, and aooroximatelv 700 feet west 01 Maroarita Road COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS No reports at this time. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No reports at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 6:38 ?,M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjoumed this meeting to the next r~ular ,meetlnq to be held on December 14. 2005 at 6:30 P,M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, ~~~~ Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:lMinulesPC\120705 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 19 NOVEMBER 16, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 46 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on Wednesday, November 16, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, Per requirements of the Rre Marshal, Chairman Mathewson announced that additional seating will be available in the Main Conference Room, }\LLEGIANCE Commissioner Harter 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 RECOMMENDA nON: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of November 2, 2005. 2 Director's Hearino Case Uodate RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October, 2005, MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. ColTVTlissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aODl'Oval, R:\MinutesPC\ 111805 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS New (terns 3 Plannina Aoolication No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment. PAOS-0302 Planned Development Overlav. PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and DevelODment Plan. PA04- 0571 Parcel MaD. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inch for a General Plan Amendment Zone Chanae. Conditional Use Permit. Develooment Plan and a Tentative Parcel MaD to construct a 566.160 square foot hosqital. includino medical office buildinps on 35,31 acres. located on North side of Hiahway 79 South and south of DePortola Road, and aDDroximatelv 700 feet west of Maraarita Road By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Papp presented the Planning Commission with a staff report (of written record), advising that subsequent to the preparation of the agenda report and packet of this meeting, two additional letters and three emails were received concerning the proposed project. For the Planning Commission, Director of PUblic Works Hughes stated that all street improvements along 79 South, the intersection at 79 South, and the driveway on De Portola will be in the first phase, except for .the Dartolo Road connection. . With regard to helicopter flights, Mr, Papp noted that the type of license that the applicant will be applying for would allow an average of one flight to six flights a month and that the perimeter landscaping will have 24-inch box and 15-gallon trees installed. By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Ms. Laura Stetson, representing paD Consultants, presented the Environmental Impact Report (01 record), highlighting the following: . Impacts considered but found to be less than significant o Aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality o Air Quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies o Hydrology and water quality o Land Use Planning o Noise - construction, ground-borne vibration, traffic-related noise, sirens, loading dock activities, trash pick-up, landscape maintenance, future exterior/interior noise environment . Potentially Significant Impacts that can be mitigated o Aesthetics - Ught and glare o Noise - Operational impacts (mechanical yard, emergency generators, rnecl1anical equipment, rooftop equipment) o Transportation - Project impacts . UnaVOidable Significant Impacts o Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality Impacts o Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopters flights o Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts R:\MirotesPCI 111605 2 Ms. Stetson stated that given all the information, and as part of the approval process, if the Planning Commission were to recommend and the City Council were to approve the project with these significant unavoidable impacts, a finding must be made that the project benefits out-way the unavoidable significant affects (as noted below) associated with construction and operation of the hospital. . That the proposed hospital will provide necessary medical services to the local community including Emergency Acute/Outpatient and Cancer Medical care and rehabilitation . That the proposed hospital will provide the region with new employment opportunities for highly trained medical staff and medical service workers . That the proposed hospital will support civersification of Temecula's Economic and Employment base including and not limited to the biomedical research and office facilities that would be on site . That the Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located with access from a major roadway to best serve the medical service needs of local residence as well as. the region. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked the applicant how the noise concern of sirens at night will be addressed. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, City Attorney Thorson stated that because staff does not have all the responses to the numerous comments that were received from private parties, the Planning Commission will be asked to continue this item to the December 7,2005, Planning Commission meeting; at that tirne. staff will be addreSsing concerns of the Planning Commission as well as concerns from speakers. For the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that all questions and comments will be addressed at the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Scott Crane. Director of Business Development for Riverside County for Universal Health Services and Ms, Unda Bradley, CEO and Managing Director of Southwest Health Care System (consisting of Inland Valley Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center) spoke in favor of the proposed project, offering the following; . That in light of the size of the City and considering its anticipated growth, this City should have a high-quality, state-of.the-art hospital . That a hospital would be a key facility in providing health care services to citizens of Temecula . That Temecula Valley is currently served by two Universal Health Service Hospitals, Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, both part of Southwest Health Care System; that Rancho Springs Medical Center (closest emergency room to the proposed site) is approximately eight miles north of the hospital project for Temecula R:\r.r/llutesPCII11605 3 . That both current hospitals regularly operate at above 90% capacity for its avemge daily census; that the heatth care team desires and needs the proposed hospital; and that currently patients are treated in hallways because the community and demand for medical services has exceeded the design capacity of the current facilities . That Universa.l Health Services will be investing more than $50 million in expanding the two existing hospitals to add beds and rooms, an open heart and cardiac unit at Inland Valley Medical Center, 0.8. Department at Rancho Springs, including a nee-natal intensive care unit, and doubling and tripling the size of the current emergency room . That expansions of Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho Springs will not be able to accommodate the current demand . That in the event of a natural disaster, the community will not have the facilities to adequately handle a natural disaster or national securiity event . That although other properties were considered, it was determined that the 79 South corridor is properly configured with appropriate access . That for years Southwest Health Care Systems has proven to be a good corporate citizen for the community . That if the proposed project were approved, the hospital will be providing high-quality services easily accessible to Temecula residents who will no longer have to travel long distances to receive such care . . That the hospital design will be based on clinical needs and patient-care concerns; that departments that need to be close to each other for optimum critical patient care are the emergency departments, x-ray, and surgery; that out-patient services tend to flow horizontally within a hospital and in-patient services tend to !low vertically; that additionally, loading dock functions, materials management, and other support services are all areas that have primary relationships to the first-floor functions; and that departments such as 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, including patient care towers . That patient rooms will be designed in stacking order, similar to a hotel; that typical bed floors operate most efficiently at 34 to 38 patient rooms per floor; for initial construction of the 170 beds; that the project will dictate five floors of patient rooms above the first floor of the whole facility; thereby, defining the project as a 6-story bed tower . That the State limits the distance hospital staff may travel from a nurse station to the patient room to 90 feet which, in turn, has an affect on how large a bed floor may be designed in order to maintain practical efficiency; that State code requires that all patient rooms have an exterior window; that with 170 beds, the amount of exterior wall needed to ensure that code requirements are met will dictate multiple levels of patient floors R:\MinutesPC\l11605 4 . That after establishing a need for a multilevel tower, the location of the hospital tower will be determined by how the tower will relate to internal functions: and that the key criteria for locating the bed tower will be dictated by the proximity of the critical core departments, ER, Imaging, and surgery . That in the design of the Temecula Hospital, the core elevators are located centrally among the core departments and central to the first-level floor plan: that optimum patient transfer efficiency will be achieved with the central core; that if you were an in-patient in the hospital, one would desire to be closer to the elevators so that one could get to the needed services faster . That mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are more efficiently designed with the central tower which lead to faster construction and help provide quality health care sooner . That if the proposed hospital were designed with shorter bed towers, patients would have a longer distance to access needed critical services and, therefore, taking longer to get life-saving services to patients . That the hospital project will bring between 1,000 and 1,200 new lOcal jobs and will eliminate long commutes; and that the hospital will also bring two medical office buildings, one that will be buiK prior to the hospital, providing outpatient hospital services such as outpatient care, x-ray and lab, physical therapy as well as physician offices . That the hospital will bring medical and surgical services, an intensive care unit, eight operating rooms, lab and x-ray, and an emergency department that will be able to assist more than 40 patients at one time . That the hospital will not be designated as a trauma center . That when the hospital will be built, it will be one of the top three employers and tax payers in the City of Temecula . That the applicant is aware of the concems of the helipad but that the helipad would only be used to transport critically injured or ill patients to a specialty hospital . That the patient care tower will alloY" for a future planned expansion if necessary, with no need to expand infrastructure: therefore, expansion may occur rapidly to meet the needs of the community . That the proposal including a complete plan for the hospital with no hidden parts and/or no changes contemplated down the road for the hospital . That with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council and the City Council's approval, Universal Health System will deliver a hospital, R:\Minute.PC\ 111605 5 In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's concem regarding the sound of sirens at night, Mr, Crane stated the construction of a hospital would not create more ambulance runs; that ambulance runs are currently based on population, that ambulance needs occur whether there is a hospital or not; and that it would be the destination of the ambulance that would cause the siren, Referencing Chairman Mathewson's question regarding doubling up on nurses station to reduce the height of the towers, Ms. Stetson advised that doubling nurses station to have broader patient towers and less stories would result in a longer distance to get a patient to emergency services; that it is very important to have patient care floors be the perimeter in order to provide shorter distance times from the furthest patients out to the central core down to the emergency services; and that higher towers, with less square footage, would be best for patient care, For the Planning Commission, Mr. Crane stated that a designation for a trauma center would be designated by the County, not Universal Health Systems. Ms, Stetson informed the Commission that because sudden and unanticipated changes in patient's conditions occur, it would be difficult to determine how patients are placed in a hospital. It was also stated for the Commission that the State and County regulate the disposal of hazardous materials. Mr. Crane advised that Universal Health Systems explored other construction sites but that the sites were not adequately designed to meet the needs of the hospital. In response to Chairman Mathewson's query, Mr, Crane stated that typically the number of helicopter flights would relate to emergency room visits; that there will be occasions when conditions will change with a patient which would require relocation and that if the hospital were to exceed the maximum number of helicopter flights allowed, a viable alternative would be to ground transport patients to Inland Valley Regional Medical Center (Trauma Center) from a critical care ambulance transfer and helicopter transport the patient from there, Chairman Mathewson thanked Mr. Crane and Ms, Stetson for their report, At 6:00 p.m" the Planning Commission recessed for a 15-minute break. At 6:15 the Planning Commission resumed with the meeting. At this time the public hearing was opened, The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed hospital project: . . Dr. Russ Hatt . Dr. Kevin Aaig, Murrieta . Dr. Edward Pillar, Murrieta · Ms. Linda Maxwell, Temecula . Mr. Charles V. Bahr, Corona . Ms. Joan Sparkman . Mr. Rick Meyer · Ms. Leah Patterson, Murrieta · Ms, Tomi Arbogast, Temecula R:\MinutesPC\111605 6 . Ms, Vanessa Ruelas . Mr. Roger Ziemer, Tem8Cula . Ms, Alice Sullivan, Temecula . Mr, Dennis Frank, Temecula . Mr, Michael Murphy, Canyon Lake . Ms, Rene Aberle, Murrieta . Ms. Debbie Parker, Temecula . Janis Rustard, Temecula . Mr. Mark Nelson, Temecula . Dr. Brett Ginther, Fallbrook . Dr. Reza Vaezazizi, Temecula . Ms, Debbie Moss, Temecula . Ms, Barbara Lasko-Hoellinger, Temecula . Ms. Chesi Levy, Temecula . Ms, Susan Wildgoose, Temecula . Ms. Unda Barr, Murrieta . Mr. Norm Everett, Temecula MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to extend the meeting time to 10:30 p.m, Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDrova'. . Ms, Trisha Heide, Temecula . Ms. Justine Castro, Temecula . Mr. David Moorhead, Temecula The above mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons: . That Universal Health System is committed 10 quality patient care . That there are not enough beds at the current hospitals to provide the health care needs of the community . That the expansion efforts of Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center will only help with the current over crowding issues . That true adequate future health care coverage could only be obtained with building the proposed hospital project . That in terms of an emergency, minutes are critical . That to avoid' a local health care crisis, the proposed project must be built . That if the proposed project were not approved, the health of the pUblic will be in jeopardy . That the combined yearly volume of patient visits at Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center would be over 60,000 patients a year R:\Minirt8sPCI 111605 7 . That the City of Temecula needs and deserves a state-of-the-art hospital . That the diversity and accessibility of the helicopters would make medical operations more capable . That good emergency care is needed in the Temecula Valley . That the current and future growth of Sout/:1west Califomia and Ternecula Valley requires that a state of the art hospital be a key component in the community . That the health and well being of Temecula citizens depend greatly on the ability lor pave the way for such facilities to be built . That considering the projected population growth of the combined cities of Temecula and Murrieta will exceed 200,000 within the next 10 years, it will require immediate action and approval 01 this hospital facility . That any delay in approving the proposed project will have profound impacts on the region's ability to grow, prosper, and meet future health care needs of the community . That while Temecula's population has tripled since incorporation, the City of Temecula and its outlined region cannot rely on medical facilities at its immediate service areas . That in the event 01 a major catastrophe access to Murrieta or Wildomar may not be available . That Southwest Healthcare System will be committed to developing a state-of-the-art facility to serve the need of the community . That although the services at Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center are excellent, the facilities are inadequate to deal with the current growth as well as the fu1ure growth . That Universal Health System is a great organization to work for and will provide high- quality cost-effective, coordinated health care services to the T emecula Valley. The following individuals spoke jn oooosition of the proposed hospital project: . Mr. Brad Storman, Temecula . Ms. Gloria Smith, Murrieta . Mr. Matt Hagemann, San Marcos . Mr, Don Stowe, Temecula . Mr. Jerry Toliver, Temecula . Mr. Richard Anderson, Temecula . Mr. Kenneth Ray, Temecula . Mr. Don Brown, Temecula . Mr, Raymond Bennett, Temecula . Mr, George Di Leo, Temecula R:\MinutesPC\l11805 8 The above mentioned individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: . That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has not completely addressed the noise traffic impacts that the proposed project will bring . That a block wall installed between the proposed project and nearby residents would significantly reduce the noise impacts that will be created by the proposed hospital . That the EIR should include estimated number of helicopter flights and lIs associated noise . That toe EIR does not describe the project . That the EIR does not analyze the reasonable/feasible impacts . That the residents surrounding the proposed site are of the opinion that the City could mitigate the noise impacts to the homes by installing a brick wall along OePortola Road and Pio Pico Road, advising that this would be a simple, inexpensive, and affective opportunity to reduce the noise impacts . That the surrounding residents are concerned with the additional impacts that the hospital will have on Pio Pico Road . That the EIR does not address leaking underground fuel tanks from nearby gas stations that are contaminating ground water and moving toward the hospital site; and that the EIR must address all issues regarding leaking underground fuel is warranted under the law and requires the preparation of an EIR . That the EIR only addresses a fraction of the significant impacts associated with the proposed project . That the EIR has failed to address hazardous waste materials and geology . That in review of documentation obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board's website, there are gas stations leaking plumes to the area of the proposed project; and that a Methyl Tertyl Butyl Ether (MTBE) gasoline additive has been detected in the drinking water along the sou1hem boundary of the proposed hospital site . That further evaluation of the proposed site and a revised EIR would be necessary to ensure hospital water and patient safety; that sampling of ground water should. be granted in the vicinity of the proposed hospital to ensure that !he water supply well will be protected; and that any necessary clean-up should be conducted prior to construction . That the proposed hospital is located in a liquefaction hazard zone; that the Riverside County Geologist has designated this area as very high potential for liquefaction; and that maps indicate that a study will be required prior to a public hearing for the project entitlement . That although residents agree with the need for a hospital in the community, it will have a negative impact on the surrounding residences . R:\MinutesPCI 111605 9 . That surrounding residents of the proposed project are concerned with traffic problems as a result of the DePortola Road access; and that a No access on DePortola Road would be preferred . That noise from sirens would be a safety issue for equestrian-type activities that occur around the area . That the proposed project will lower property values and destroy the rural setting of the community . That visual tranquility will be destroyed with the lights and tower height of the proposed hospital . That Los Ranchitos and Santiago Rancho Estates represent equestrian areas within the City of Temecula; that the streets in the area are narrow rural residential streets without cement curbs, sidewalks, and street lights; and that the streets cannot handle the daily cut-through traffic that will be' generated by a DePortola entrance . That the proposed height of the hospital site will be unacceptable . That the applicant of the proposed hospital must make reasonable modifications to better conform to the City's height limits, MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue Item NO.3 to the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected .!.Jnanlmous sDDrovsl. Commissioner Guerriero thanked the doctors and nurses who spoke on behalf of the hospital. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Chiniaetf advised the Commission that he will not be in attendance of the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting due to him being out of the Country, PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Referencing the selection process and reappointments of Commissioners, Deputy City Manager Thornhill, advised the Planning Commission that at some point in the future, staff will ask the Commission for their thoughts with regard to the selection and reappointment process. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the Planning Commission meetings for the month of December 2005 will be December 7 and December 14, 2005. advising that that December 21, 2005, will be cancelled. R:lMinuteaPc\1 I 1605 10 ADJOURNMENT At 10:21 P.M" Chairman Mathewson formally adjoumed this meeting to the next refl.ular meetinq 10 be held on December 7. 2005 at 6:30 P,M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ~,..- u~)~ Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MlnutesPCI111605 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 20 NOVEMBER 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 47 . . . STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: November 16. 2005 Prepared by: Emery J, Papp, AICP Title: Senior Planner File Number: P A04-0462 P A05-0302 P A04-0463 PA04-0571 Application Type: 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: I:8J Recommend City CounCil Approval with Conditions CEOA: I:8J ErR with Statement of Overriding Considerations PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: Universal Health Services of Rancho SprinQs. 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\2OO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAfFREPORTII- 16-05 v2.doc I - South: East: West: HiQhway 79 South. Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Comrnercial (CC) . Professional Office (PO)" HiQhwayrrourist Commercial (HTI, PD0-8 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 eighllots, . including a portion of the Pio Pico 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 wi1h 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 . He!ipad (location and number of flights) . R:\C U N.004\04.0463 Temecula Regjooa.l Hospiul\PC I 1.16.o5\PC.STAFFREPORTl I 16-05 "Z.doc 2 e . . 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 Oualitv Act (CEOAjlssues . A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate for the project . There are analytical gaps in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MNO) . 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 mitiga1ion 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 OePortola 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 rnitigate 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 Hvdroloov 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 NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional HOspitaI\PC II-t6-05\P(>STAFFREPORT11.J6-QS v2.doc ] The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt 01 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 E/R (SCH # 2005031017 - the same number as originally given to the MND) was circulated lor 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 Environmentallmoact Reoort 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 lor 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 ageneies. 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 fjfteen copies of the Draft EIR for distribution to Responsible and Trustee agencies for review and comment. The City requested a shortened, 3O-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 tor 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-telTT1 operation of the proposed TemecuJa Regional Hospital. The EIR conclusions are as follow: I Unavoidable Significant Impacts I Short-term, long~term, and cumulative arr quality impacts ... Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of I emergency helicopter flights I Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts I . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temccula RegjooOl.l HospilaN'C I l-16-05\pc.STAFfREPORTI 1-16-05 vZ.doc 4 . . . I Potentially Significant Impacts that can be Mitigated I 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 I Aesthetics - Scenic highways and visual character or quality Air Quality - Construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies I Hydrology and water quality I Land use and planning Noise (construction, ground-borne vibration, traffic-related noise, sirens, loading dock activities, trash pick-up, landscape maintenance, future exteriorlinterior noise environment) Issues Deemed by the Initial Study to have a Less than Significant Impact or No Impact Agriculture resources Biological resources Cultural resources I Geology/soils i Hazards/fire safety I Mineral resources Population and housing Public services Recreation I 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 Altematives. These sections of the EIR are briefly summarized below, R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecub Regiooal Hospital\PC 11.16.o5\PC:'ST AFFREPORTI1. 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 I Alternative 1: No Project - No Build Alternative 2: No Project - Development Pursuant to General Plan No additional vehicle trips Utilizing the Target Floor Area Ratio, vehicle trips are expected to be 33,000 - causing an increase of 21,542 ADT* Total number of vehicle trips equal to proposed project (1 t ,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 3: Alternate Site - Corona Family Properties Alternative 5: Access from OePortola Road and Dartolo Road Total ADT same as for Project (11,458) 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 irnpacts 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 11-I&.05\PC-ST AFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 6 . . . Altemative 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 hospitaVmedical 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 commerciaVoffice 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 tolfrom OePortola 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. OePortola 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 E1R shows that the resulting Level of Service (LOS) on OePortola Road with existing traffic, plus the Curnulative Projects, plus the proposed hospital project will be maintained at LOS "0". The total number of ADT will be 8,650. Up to 14,000 vehicle trips per day can be handled on the existing OePortola Road before exceeding LOS "D." As a result, project impacts on the LOS for DePortola 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-tum lanes 1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide) T-2. The project applicantlpennittee will pay Riverside County Transportation Unifonn Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to. the Highway 79 South intersection at 1-15. R:\C U P\2OO4\04-0463 Tcmecllla Regional HospitaNJ(: 11.16-OS\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16~05 v2.doc 1 T -3. The project applicanllpenmittee will contribute a fair share toward the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the project's contribution toward cumulative . impacts: Highway 79 Southll-15 Southbound Ramps: Additional southbound left-turn lane Highway 79 Southll-15 Northbound Ramps: Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert westbound right lane to free right turn Highway 79 Southlla paz Road: Widen southbound movement to duallelt 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 SouthlProjecl 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 tor 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 Bement is proposed. If approved, the General Plan Amendment will remove eight parcels from an existing Specific Plan Overiay District, which currently limits the height of buildings to two-stories. The proposed hospilal 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 resu~ 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 boon 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 NOO4\04-0463 Temeeu.la R~giona1 Hospital\PC 11.16-05\P(.>STAfFREPORTII.I6-05 vl.doc , . 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 Margarila Road. As proposed and conditioned, the project is compatible with the existing buill 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 Slate 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 2tO 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 delails 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 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, Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temeatla Regional HospitaNJe l1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTlI-16-0S v2.00c 9 D. Noise Utilizing the discussion of thresholds for noise identified in the EIR, the following is a . summary of the noise impacts for the T emecula 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 noiselland 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 acol}stical 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, nile 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\2Q04\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitafIPC 11-16--05\PC-STAFFREPORTII.I6-it5 v2 doc 10 . . . N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospi1alloading 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-aradinq AQ-t. 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 (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, 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-{)463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\PC 11-1 &-OS\PC-ST AFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc II beginning of construction, the City pf 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. 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 Aule 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: o 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, . o Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion. o Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in the morning and at least once in the aftemoon, o 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. o Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. o 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 periiodic site monitoring by the City Gradino 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 0, The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related enclosures and . R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regioru.l Hospital\PC II-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll. 16-05 v2.doc 12 . 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 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 aU 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/prdaslbrochureslSuper-ComplianCAIM.pdf http://www.delta-institute.orglpublicationslpaints.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. Ooerations 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 applicanVperrnittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs tolfrom 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 f\2OO(\()4..Q463 Temecula Regional Hospittl\PC I l-l6..05\PC:'STAFfREPORTl 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 ENects 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 Qualitv. 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. HvdrolojJv and Groundwater. Impacts related to runoN and siltation will be controlled on a project-by-project basis due to required adherence to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elirnination 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 ot the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Master Drainage Plan, Land Use and Plannino.. 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 NOO4\04-0463 Temecuta Regional Hospital\PC ll-I6-05\PC-STAFfREPORTII-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 Elernent policies aimed at avoiding compatibility conflicts will reduce cumulative noise impacts to a less than sign"icant level. TransDortation. 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 reductiDn 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 Oartolo 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 T emecula that is fully served by urban infrastructure and is considered an infill 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\1004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1.16-05\PC-SfAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc IS 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 fhe long life span of the project, the non- renewable resources consurned 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 hospita.l 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 01 TemecuJa 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 01 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 alternative could be greater due to longer helicopter flights over residentia' 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 TemttUla f<<:giooal Hospital\PC 11.16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTI1-16-OS v2.doc 16 . Road because there will be no access tolfrom 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 irnpacts 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 OePortola 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 irnpacts associated with the construction and operation of the project. This alternative would meet the City's arid the Applicant's objectives, bu1 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, bu1 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 altemative 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 environrnentally superior A1fernative. 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,IC U P12~3 Temecul, Regional H05pila1\l'C 1I.16.05\PC-STAA'REI'ORTI1-16-05 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 sac 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 of 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 T emecula. 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 T emecula 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 T emecula 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\2OO4-\04-0463 Tcmecu\..:J. Regional HospitaJ\PC 11-16-OS\PC-ST AFFREPORTll.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 ErR and a brief description of the issues discussed in each letter. The public review and comment period was from September 26, 2005 through October 26, 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 comrnent 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 l-t5, 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 contarninated 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 si.9nificant 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 26, 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 . Role U Pl2004\04.0463 Temecul. Regional Hospitll\PC 11-16~-STAFFREPORTlI-I6-05 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 mus1 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 concemed 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 developrnent 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 Overlay 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 P.lan 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 cornmunity 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 use$." 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:\CU P\2Q04\04..()463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-ll5\PC-STAFFREPORTIJ-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 radiologylimaging, 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 eastem 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, but the permit to be obtained from the CaKrans 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 hel/pad, 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 IB 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, OePortola 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 32o-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 Oartolo 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-OS\PC-STAFFREPORTIl-t6-05 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 trom the project site (right- out only). The project site will also have intemal access connecting with the Rancho Pueblo PD~ 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 Desian/Architecture 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-cachere 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 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecllla, Regional Hos.pilaN'C 11-16-05\PC:'ST AFfREPORT11-16-05 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. Buildino Heioht 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 "fonm 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 concems 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 tha1 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 OePortola Road, staff believes that the visual impacts of the towers have been adequately mitigated, Landscaoinq 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 westem property line of assorted street trees; and a minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffer consisting of an infonmal 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 Gode 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 benms 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 benms and mature evergreen trees such as Afghan Pines and R:\C U P\2OO4\04-0463 Ternecula Regional Hospilal\PC I 1.16-05\PC.STAFfREPORTI1-16.OS v2.doc 23 California Pepper trees between the project site and residential areas to the north (OP Condition No. m e 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 Pio Pico Road. The portion requested to be abandoned is not built at this time, The proposed parcel map is consistent with the City's S~bdivisjon Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINA110N Slaff 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 thai an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this project. A Draft Focused Environmentallmpacl 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 helicopter . flights . Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts 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 followinQ mitiQations. staff recommends certification of the EIR for the oroject, 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, 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 Certiticate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices. . R:\C U P\2OO4\04-0463 Temccula Regional HospitaNJ'C I '-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 24 . AQ-3. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy elficiency standards . appropriate for medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of Califomia 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). II 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, 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 elficiency 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 basad 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 ot. Temecula, including compliance wllh 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 ot 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 operatiions 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 01 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 01 grading and excavation operations, Comoliance with The FUQitive Dust Control Plan shall be R:\C U 1'\2004\04.0463 Temccnla Regional HospitaE\PC 11-16.{)5\PC>STAFFREPORTII.16-05 v2.doc Z5 subject to periodic site monitoring by the City . AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicanVpermittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. AQ.9. The applicanVpermittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet trom the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel. AQ-l0. The applicanVpermillee 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-ll. All trucks exporting and/or importing till tolfrom 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 Slate 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 fugilive 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 ot 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, eanh 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 tram being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the Cily Engineer at his sole discretion. AQ-14. The applicanVpermittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the construction and repainting 01 the project to the maximum extent teasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coatings. The following websites provide lists ot manufacturers of zero VOC content coatings: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdaslbrochures/Super-ComplianCAIM,pdf http://www.de~a-institute.orglpublications/painls.pdf AQ-15. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the moming 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 root 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\20()4\04--04(j3 Temecub Regional Hospital\PC ll-16-05\PC-ST AFffiEPORTII-16-05 v2.doc 26 . . . . Noise 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 HiQhwa'l. 79 South) to promote anernative trans!lortation, 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 monnoring for a period of one week. Such monnoring shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer, If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the City ot T emecula 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 limned to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed appropriate by a certnied acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report wtth the City documenting compliance. N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limned to emergency-only circumstances for critical patient transport. The lIPplicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit tor an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in the Calitornia Code of Regulations, Hie 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 tor adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even ~ 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 limned 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 torth in the Cny 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 orooerties. 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-tum lane Easfbound: 2 left-turn lanes 2 through tanes 1 shared through/right lane Northbound: 1 left-turn lane 1 shared throUQh/riQhtlane R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Term:clda Regiooal Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC.STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc 27 Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes 1 shared through/right lane (20 teet 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 -3. The project applicant/permiltee will contribute a tair share toward the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the project's contribution toward cumulative impacts: Highway 79 SoutM-15 Southbound Ramps: Additional southbound left. turn lane Highway 79 SoutM-15 Northbound Ramps: Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert westbound right lane to tree right tum Highway 79 SouthlLa Paz Road: Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and one shared through/right lane Highway 79 Soulh/Pechanga Parkway: Additional northbound lell-turn lane, plus eastbound and northbound free right-turn lanes Highway 79 South/Projecf Driveway/Country G/en 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 SOUIh/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road: Provide southbound and eastbound duallell and right-turn traffic signal overlaps. Aesthetics T-4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola Road develoDed to the soecifications 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, I including means to mitigate, Corresponding criteria for helicopterlheliport 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 tram the upper lloors. 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 10 residential parcels. . R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regiona.l Hospital\PC 11-16.QS\PC-STAFFREPORTII-I6-.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-tenm 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 ot the T emecula Regional Hospital override and make infeasible any altematives 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 ot residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses." Additionally, Policy 1.8 under the Land Use Element Goal 1 encourages '~uture development of a community hospital and related services, as well as a community college, major college or university," R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 TemccuJa Regional HospitanPC 11-16~5\PC-sr AFfR.EPORTII-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 ihe 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 17.040.010E) 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 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 cornmunity 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 (PDD-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 Studly and an EIR was prepared, which identified . R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitJl\PC I 1.16-05\PC>STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 \l2.doc 30 . . . c. potentially significant environrnental 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 tum 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 1). 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 Califomia 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 U P\2OO4\04-0463 Tcmecula Regional HOS{Iilal\PC II.J6.o5\PC-SfAFFREPORTII-16-OS v2.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 ParceVTract 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 coolinglopportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; . R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Tcmocub Regional HospitaN'C 11-16-OS\PC-STAFFREPORTI J-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 01 the City 01 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 01 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 lor the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances 01 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 01 the public, health, safety and general welfare, The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection 01 the public health, safety, and general wellare, 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 unilorm building and fire codes, Tentative Parcel/Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400 a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements 01 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 01 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 01 the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with appropriate Conditions 01 Approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known lish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-sileo 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 01 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\2OO4\Q4-0463Temecula Rt:gional Hospitaf\PC 11-16-Q5\PC-STAFFREPORTJ 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 commerciaVoffice 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 PermiVDevelopment 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..os\PC-STAFFREPQRTI1.16.0S v2.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:'<:: U P\2004\04-Gt63 Temecula Regional HospitaN'C J 1-16-05\PC-STAfFREPORTII-16-O.s v2.doc 35 ATTACHMENT NO. 21 APRIL 20, 2005 PLANNING COMMISION MINUTES G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 48 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 Chinlaeff 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 Aoenda 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 Hearino Case Uodat~ RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March, 2005, A:\MinutesPC'D42005 1 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice reflected approval with the exceDtlon of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from March 2, 2005 4 Plan nino Aoolication No. PA04-0393. a Develooment Plan. submitted bv Currv Brandaw Architects~ to construct~ establish. and ooerate a three-storv senior conoreoate care facilitv consistino of 115 units on 2.1 acres and an exceotion to the develooment standards to reduce the qnsite oarkinQ reouirements bv 13 ~aces. located on the southeast corner 01 Villaoe Road and Townshio Road within the Harveston Soecific 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 Horne 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 01 the Planning Commission, the appUcant 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 traditlonaf 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:\Minuf</sPC\042005 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 alter 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. Jeffrey Duhaney . Mr.RogerLogan . Mr, Larry Bales . Mr, Kenneth Ray . Mr. Kristopher Williams Mr. Spencer Simm Ms. Shelley Moon Mr. Mike Bender Ms, Stormer Simm . 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 Harvestoo . 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:\MinutesPC\042005 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 Alhadett, 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 rooftine 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: . 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 con",.oc",..;" 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 Chiniaelf 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 lime, 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:\MinutesPCI042OQS 4 Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that age, medical conditions, race, color .or creed are not factors 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 T elesio's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the retail spaces would not be useable for any residential spa<;es 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 onsite 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 proje<.'l 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 thaI modifications' shall be subject to Ihe 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 Plal'ning, Commissioner Chiniaeff seConded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. At this time, Planning Commission took a five-minute break. R:\MinutosPC'042005 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 Apri/6, 2005 5 Planninc Aoolication No, PA04-0462. PA04-0463. PA04-0571. a General Plan Amendment. Zone Chance. Conditional Use Permit. Develooment Plan snc:t Tentativ~ P/ilrc,el MaQ Iju!?mitted bv Universal Health Svstems. Inc. t.~ Cl)n!!itnlct a ~20-l)et:l hosoital f::,-cilitv and helioad. two medical office buildinqs totalino aoo.roximate/v 140.000 spuare feel. a 10,000 souare foot cancer center. and an 8.000 SQuare foot fitness rehabilitation center all totalino aooroximatelv 566.160 SQuare feet .on 35.31 acres. located on the north side of Hiohwav 79 South and south of DePortola Road. aooroximatelv 700 feet west of Maroarila 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 staffs 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 tonighl'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 Nap 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 bU1 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). A:\MWlutesPC\042005 8 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 City 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 OePortola 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 Plco 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 Pica 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 Pica 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, Commissioner Telesio noted that all of Plo Pico Road south of OePortota Road will be addressed in the traffic/circulation portion of the project. At this time, the publiC hearing was closed. R:\MInutesPC'IJ420Q5 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 bU1 requested that staff include the storm drain issue that would run through the proposed property and the Impacts n 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 Plannino Aoolication No. PA04-D561 a Develooment Plan' submitted bv STDR Architects to construct and ooerate a 7.380 SQuare foot restaurant located on 0.42 acres. oenerallv located aoproximatel'l BOO feet west of Maroarita Road at the northeast intersection of the T emecula Mall Le>oo Road anli thE! Mall Access Ro~d 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 may l)~ dUll! and r.a\(lj!.l)!fl b\( the Develooment Aoreement, be added to the end 0: each 01 the tollowing 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:\MinulesPC\D42005 8 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 concem, Associate Planner Fisk noted that the tower elements would be closed windows. . Commissioner Guerriero also noted his concem 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 Torito 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 th(! 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:\MinutesPC'D42005 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 tim~, 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 il be the traditional style, Commissioner Guerriero expressed his enthusiasm with the EJ 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;lMinutosPC\042005 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 except/on of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent, 7 PlanninaApplicatiC\11 No. PA05-O{)47. a Develo~ment Code Amendment. amendino the Municioal Gpde to allow automobile and truck dealershios to conduct weekend oromotional activities with an aoorqoriate oermit. increase the number of allowable minor te[TlOorarv use llermits from two to four oer vear. and make a modification to the allowable size for freestandina tenant identification sions Associate Planner West presented a staff report (of record), In response 10 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 feel with a maximum height off the ground of 6 feet. R:\MinutesPClO42005 11 Chairman Mathewson expressed concem with such activities becoming an every-weekend event. Addressing Chainman Mathewson's concem, 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 Penmit 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 T emecula 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 exceDtion 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 APPUCATION NO. PA05-00(7)" COMMISSIONER'S REPORT Commissioner Telesio requested that Code Enforcement explore the fumiture 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 concems, Director ot Planning Ubnoske noted that she will have Code Enforcement explore his concems. 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 meet/na to be held on Wednesdav, Mav 4.2005 at 6:00 P.M" in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, /\~ Dav~athewson Chairman '7)J,~-c' ~~ Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\042005 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 22 APRIL 6, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT.doc 49 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Meeting: April 6, 2005 Prepared by: Dan LonQ Title: Associate Planner File Number PA04-0462 P A04-0463 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: DApprove with Conditions CEQA: o Deny Deontinue for Redesign o Continue to: [8J Recommend Approval with Conditions o Recommend Denial o Categorically Exempt (Class) . Notice of Determination o Negative Declaration IZI Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan (Section) DEIR R:\C U P\2004\04-ll463 Temecula Regional HospitallPC-STAFF REPORT.doc 1 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Applicant: Universal Health Services, 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 Hosoital PDO-9) Site/Surrounding Land Use: Site: Vacant North: South: Very Low Density Residential (VL) Highway 79 South, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CC) Professional Office (POl, Hi!lhwayrrourist Commercial (HT), PDO-8 PDO-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlayi East: West: 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 566,160 square feet TOTAL: 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. Role U P\2004\04-<l463 Temeoul. Regional HospitallPC-8TAFF 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 P12004104.0463 Temecula Regional HospitaIIPC-STAFF REPORT.doc 3 submitted a PDO document with the zone change application, which will modify the height limit to 115 feet. Zone Chance 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. g (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 radiologyl 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, Develooment 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 floodway (Condition No. 91a). The project site will also have internal access connecting with the Rancho Pueblo PDO to the west. R:IC U P\2004104.0463 Temecula Regional HospilaI\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 Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) 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 aestheticslvisual, air quality, archaeological, flood plain, geological/seismic, noise, population/housing balance, R:\C U PI2Q04\044l63 Temecula Regional Hospilal\J'C-STAFF REPORT.doc 5 public services/facilities, sewer capacity, soils erosionlcompaction/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: "A well balanced community provides a broad range of land uses that are planned in desirable pattems 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: "A City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use pattems". "Provide a pattem 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 Chanoe 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:IC U PI2004\04.{)463 Tcmecula Regional HospiIaIIPC-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. Traffic and Circulation (access points) The primary issues raised during the community meetings included traffic impacts upon the adjacent residential streets such as OePortola Road and Pio Pico. The initial project did not include an access point to/from OePortola. Staff required the applicant to provide secondary driveway access directly to OePortola. 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 ingresslegress 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 traffic leaving the project site onto OePortola 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 f100dway connecting the site to Oartolo Road on the eastern portion of the site (Condition No 91a). 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 OePortola 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 P12004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallPC-STAff REPORT.doe 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 indude 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 photometries 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. Develooment Plan AccesslCirculation 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 tum lane along the westbound lanes and restriping of through lanes and tuming 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, intemal access from the project site shall be provided to Dartolo Road, R:\C U P\2004\04..Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\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 132468\. 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 g 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. Aesthetics 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.Q463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc 9 Air Quality Biological Resources I Cultural Resources I Geology and Soils I Hazardous Materials Noise TransportationlTraffic 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, FUQitive Dust Control Plan is required. 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 Flycatcher). Pre-excavation agreement with Pechanga, Monitoring for cultural and QaleontolOQical resources. Over-excavation and 90% recompaction, grading shall corn ply with 1997 UBC. Hazardous Materials Management Plan is required subject to approval of Riverside Coun!y Health Department. 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 11. 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. 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 OfF 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 P12004104.0463 Temecula Regional HospitaIIPC-5TAFF 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 andlor 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 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 R:IC U P\2004104~463 Temecula Regional HospitaIIPC-STAFF REPORT.doc 11 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 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 tum 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 Y. 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 R:\C U P\2004\04-<l463 Temecula Regional HospitallPC-STAFF REPORT.doc 12 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. 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 Parcelrrract 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-<l463 Temecula Regional HospitallPC-STAFF 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; 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 commerciaUoffice 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 Permit/Development Plan) - Blue Page 19 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_ 6. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Tentative Parcel Map) - B.lue Page 20 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_ R:\C U P\2004\04-<l463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 23 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0198 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA, SEIR\Planning\Planning Commission\PC STAFF REPORT. doc 50 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Planning Application No. PA07 -0198, General Plan Amendment; PA07 -0199, Zone Change; PA07-0200; Development Plan; PA07-0201; Tentative Parcel Map; and PA07-0202, Conditional Use Permit Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9), Development Pian, Tentative Parcel Map, and a Conditional Use Permit. 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 two stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDQ-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO- g). The proposed PDQ-9 allows a height of up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for the hospital bed towers. 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 on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight lots into one parcel. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project will have a significant impact upon the environment based upon an Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project. On January 24, 2006, the City of Temecula certified a Project EIR for the project. Subsequent to certification, a legal challenge to the Project EIR was filed with Riverside County Superior Court. A Supplemental EIR was prepared to further analyze issues the court ruled were not adequately covered in the Project EIR. The issues identified by the court as needing further analysis include: construction noise impacts; siren noise impacts; clarification of project specific and cumulative projects traffic mitigation; and potential impacts to the site from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether plumes, under remediation, in proximity of the project site. Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner City of Temecula, Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 January 9, 2008 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project atthe time of hearing. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. G:\Planning\2007\PA01~O!98 Temecula Regional Hospital GPA. SEIR\Planning\NOPH-PC.doc I 4'0 ~0 O~ " ". '", .,,,If' #~ . f"a "f: "'- 'ff'" % 'j.", '1 \. '\ 11> " ~o~~s -4\1" ,.." 00e~ -,- . ...~ 00,. - ""'-:--- , 0 0<1 ...aNn mOl OM V1n:J3V1l31 Ol~ Vl^ - O~O101~'l'O 3 z- 15 1< '" '6 " AM Y3$131-13 - ~ .. ~ ~ 4 ? fu b <l to, COOMHVIMa }..M ~I3Hl\l3H Z- - " o ,. " 4 _}.:~d.V"\f\33Vi31.-- ~Oki'ClO1.'doC3G ~ ;f ~ \t * J:P"'~ 00' &> >.. 4; '\ 'tl. 'f< '?l ~ o ~ S3NI V.lNVS Vl^ g g ~ 4 ;; ~ \;; ~ " ~ " " 8 S3BCNd S013Tl'\l'J 5 z '0 " z o " i. o "- "l.... o<:l Ola3f1d OH~N\ftI '" " " ~ ,. - w " ~ '> Y<"O"'~ ~~~ 0" w ~ ill > ~ o u ~ ,. z o ~ ,. ~ w " " " ~ "