HomeMy WebLinkAbout041515 PC AgendaIn 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
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 15, 2015 — 6:00 PM
Next in Order:
Resolution: 15 -05
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute: Commissioner Harter
Roll Call: Guerriero, Harter, Kight, Telesio and Turley -Trejo
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 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 - 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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of March 18, 2015
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Appoint a Planning Commissioner to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Steering
Committee
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.
3 Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, a Major Modification and Supplemental EIR for the
Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to
relocate the heliport from the east side of the project site to the west side of the site, and
to add a 5,000 square foot maintenance /storage building at 31700 Temecula Parkway,
Stuart Fisk
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA13 -0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07 -0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(PA07 -0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS
INCLUDING AN INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY
PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF OF A
FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER
PHASE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT
SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL
SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA
PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD
(A.P.N. 959 - 080 -026)"
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND
STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL
HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR
MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959 -080-
026)'
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S)
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 6, 2015, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main
Street, Temecula, California.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic
Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the agenda
packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.citvoftemecula.orc — and will be available for public viewing at the
respective meeting.
Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda
Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the
agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula,
8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material may be accessed on the City's website — www.citvoftemecula.orc — and will be
available for public viewing at the respective meeting.
If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at the Temecula
Civic Center, (951) 694 -6400.
ITEM 1
ACTION MINUTES
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 18, 2015 — 6:00 PM
Next in Order:
Resolution: 15 -04
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute: Commissioner Guerriero
Roll Call: Guerriero, Harter, Kight, Telesio and Turley -Trejo
Staff Attendees: Villa, Garcia, Fisk, Lee, Damko and Jones
PRESENTATIONS /PROCLAMATIONS
Business Spotlight Recognition Presentation, REVshare, Christine Damko
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 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 - 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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Action Minutes of February 18, 2015 APPROVED 5 -0; MOTION
BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO;
AYE VOTES BY COMMISSIONERS GUERRIERO, HARTER, KIGHT,TELESIO
AND TURLEY -TREJO
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.
Planning Application Nos. PA14 -2696 and PA14 -2698, a Development Plan and
Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of a 92 -unit. 67,146 square foot,
single -story skilled nursing and memory care center, located on the southwest corner of
De Portola Road and Campanula Way, Eric Jones APPROVED 5 -0; MOTION BY
COMMISSIONER HARTER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO; AYE
VOTES BY COMMISSIONERS GUERRIERO, HARTER, KIGHT,TELESIO AND
TURLEY -TREJO
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 15 -04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA14 -2696 AND
PA14 -2698, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
OF A 92 -UNIT, 67,146 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE -STORY SKILLED NURSING
AND MEMORY CARE CENTER DIVIDED INTO TWO STRUCTURES
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA
ROAD AND CAMPANULA WAY, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN
959- 090 -011)
REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS
REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S)
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Wednesday, April 15, 2015, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000
Main Street, Temecula, California.
Pat Kight
Chairman
Armando G. Villa, AICP
Director of Community Development
ITEM 2
APPOINT A PLANNING
COMMISSIONER TO THE UPTOWN
JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN STEERING
COMMITTEE
ITEM 3
STAFF REPORT — PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: April 15, 2015
TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Armando G. Villa, AICP, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, Case Planner
PROJECT Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, a Major Modification to a
SUMMARY: Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-
0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate a previously
approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location
for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location
on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later
phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single -
story storage building for non - hazardous material storage (including
disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction
materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the
previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is
generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road at 31780 Temecula
Parkway.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council Approve with Conditions
CEQA: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; Section 15163
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Name of Applicant: Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
General Plan Professional Office (PO)
Designation:
Zoning Designation: Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay -9 (PDO -9)
Existing Conditions/
Land Use:
Site: Hospital
North: Very Low Density Residential (VL)
South: Temecula Parkway, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community
Commercial (CC)
East: Professional Office (PO), Highway /Tourist Commercial (HT), PDO -8
West: PDO -6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay)
Existing /Proposed
Lot Area: 35.3 acres
Total Floor Area /Ratio: 0.37 proposed
Landscape Area /Coverage: 33.3% proposed
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
Min /Max Allowable or Required
5.0 acres
0.30 minimum /1.0 maximum
25.0% minimum
On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ( "UHS "), filed Planning
Application No. PA04 -0462, General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05 -0302,
Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2004 filed PA04 -0463,
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed 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 ( "Project ").
On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a noticed public hearing.
Based on testimony presented by the general public, the Planning Commission determined that
an Environmental Impact Report would be required 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 Environmental Impact Report for the Project. A Draft
Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and was circulated for
public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005.
On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered
the Project at noticed public hearings. After consideration of the project at the noticed 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, adopted Resolution No. 06 -02 recommending approval of
the General Plan Amendment (PA04- 0462), adopted Resolution No. 06 -03 recommending
approval of the Zone Change (PA05- 0302), adopted Resolution No. 06 -04 recommending
approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan (PA04- 0463), and adopted
Resolution No. 06 -06 recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map (PA04- 0571).
On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental
Impact Report and on the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-
0463). Following due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06 -05, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, adopted
Resolution No. 06 -06, amending the General Plan to remove the project site from the "Z -
Future Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two -story height restriction (PA04-
0462), adopted Resolution No. 06 -07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development
Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06 -08, approving Tentative
Parcel Map No. 32468 to consolidate the project's eight lots into one lot (PA04- 0571).
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
Valley Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc.
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 (methyl tertiary butyl ether; a gasoline additive) 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. 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.
On July 3, 2007, Universal Health Services, Inc., submitted Planning Application PA07 -0198, a
General Plan Amendment, PA07 -0199, a Zone Change, PA07 -0200, a Development Plan,
PA07 -0201, a Tentative Parcel Map, and PA07 -0202, a Conditional Use Permit, for a 320 -bed
hospital, 80,000 square foot medical office building, 60,000 square foot medical office building,
10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness center for the 35.3 acre
project generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west
of Margarita Road.
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. 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.
On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-
0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change), PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use
Permits), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07 -0202
(Conditional Use Permit) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project 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, adopted Resolution No. 08 -02 recommending
approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA07- 0198), adopted Resolution No. 08 -03
recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA07- 0199), adopted Resolution No. 08 -04
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 0202), adopted Resolution No.
08 -05 recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07- 0200).
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 project.
On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07 -0200) at a
noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 08 -10, certifying the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the project, adopted Resolution No. 08 -11 approving the Zone
Change (PA07- 0198), adopted Resolution 08 -12 approving the Conditional Use Permit (PA07-
3
0202), adopted Resolution 08 -13 approving the Development Plan (PA07- 0200), and adopted
Resolution 08 -14 approving the Tentative Parcel Map (PA07- 0201).
On December 30, 2009, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., applied for a first
Extension of Time for the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The City Council
approved Resolution No. 10 -08 for the Extension of Time on January 26, 2010, thereby
extending the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to January 22,
2011. In Resolution 10 -08 the City Council specified that in construing the phrase "beginning of
substantial construction contemplated by this approval' as used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution
No. 08 -12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 08 -13 the Council will consider the following
schedule of actions required to begin substantial construction of the Hospital in 2010: (1) the
submission by UHS of all documents required for the City to issue a grading and a building
permit for the Hospital on or before April 30, 2010; (2) the award of a construction contract for
the Hospital by July 1, 2010; (3) commencement of actual construction of the Hospital
foundations by October 1, 2010; and (4) diligent progress on the construction of the Hospital
thereafter. The City Council further specified in Resolution 10 -08 that in approving the
extension of the land use entitlements for the Hospital and Ancillary Facilities, the City Council
did not approve the 'Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline" described in the UHS
application for the extension and that in order to implement a phasing program UHS would need
to file for a Major Modification of the entitlements.
On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application
No. PA10 -0194, a Major Modification Application to change the phasing of the project by
reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 for Phase I of the project, to modify the building
facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to
relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor
area at the northern portion of the hospital building.
On December 15, 2010, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA10-
0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project at
the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10 -28 recommending that
the City Council approve the Major Modification (PA10 -0194) and certifies the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification.
On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10 -0194 (Major
Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project at the public
hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No.11 -17 approving Planning Application No.
PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an Addendum to the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing.
On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application
No. PA13 -0141, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use
Permit (PA07 -0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved
helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project
phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during
a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot, single -story storage building
for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess
construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved
helistop.
4
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the
applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
ANALYSIS
The Temecula Valley Hospital is being developed in phases. Phase I of the hospital began
operations on October 14, 2013. The hospital is proposing a Major Modification to the planned
helistop facility in response to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the
hospital. As discussed below, the previously approved helistop location is not desirable
because a safer design with fewer impacts on the surrounding community is available through
the proposed interim helistop location at the west side of the hospital site and the proposed
permanent rooftop location on the future hospital bed tower.
The illustration below identifies the approved flight path (black lines) and the FAA and Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics requested modification /addition to the approved flight path (blue lines),
along with the proposed interim helistop location and flight path (green lines) and permanent
helistop location and flight path (red lines):
/100,
carer e.arr. op.r . Loh
FAA bgira Tana Namp.r &W1W
Ieppiq %quem M ! Wn
L m . A M Ilaalop
ap
$modri
aeaM ls.a. AMLo-:� a.
t:
The FAA reviewed the previously approved helistop and issued a "Conditional No Objection"
determination letter (attached). Although the FAA does not specifically approve helistops,
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is responsible for issuing helistop permits and considers FAA
determination letters, and resolution of their own concerns, when considering helistop permit
approvals. Therefore, for the hospital to obtain a Caltrans Division of Aeronautics permit for the
helistop both FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics conditions and concerns regarding the
originally approved site must be addressed or a revised helistop site must be considered.
The previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital
included environmental analysis for the hospital project and presented the helicopter landing
site at a location with a shared approach and departure and a single flight path into and out of
the hospital site on the northern side of the project. However, the approved design does not
meet current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommendations for a second flight path,
which would reduce flight hazards primarily resulting from wind patterns due to the fact that
helicopter flights into headwinds are safer than flights into side or tail winds. The second flight
path suggested by the FAA at the previously approved helistop location, however, would result
in helicopter flights being routed directly over homes to the north /northwest of the hospital site
(see attached plan reductions). Further, the previous analysis did not address the development
of the adjacent Madera Vista apartments, which did not exist at the time of the first release of
the Notice of Preparation for the original EIR in 2005. The Madera Vista apartments are located
at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Margarita Road, under the currently approved
helistop flight path. As such, to operate the previously approved helistop, Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics would now require red obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings.
Due to the approved helicopter flight path's proximity to the Madera Vista apartment buildings
and the FAA's suggested second flight path over the homes located to the north /northwest of
the hospital site, as mentioned above, the previously approved helistop location is not desirable
because a safer design with fewer impacts on the surrounding community is available through
the proposed interim helistop location at the west side of the hospital site and the proposed
permanent rooftop location on the future hospital bed tower.
The Supplemental EIR prepared for the Modification application concluded that the proposed
project is an Environmentally Superior Alternative (p. S -6) to the previously approved helistop
site since modifying the previously approved helistop site to meet Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics and FAA requirements would result in greater impacts than the proposed project
with regard to aesthetics (rooftop lighting on the Madera Vista apartments) and noise.
Furthermore, the Supplemental EIR analyzed an Alternative Interim Helistop Site (located south
of the proposed interim site, closer to Temecula Parkway) and determined that the alternative
interim helistop site would result in greater aesthetic and hazard impacts than would occur with
the proposed interim helistop location. Safety is also improved with the proposed project
because the approved helistop location's flight path conflicts with prevailing winds for the area,
and the request by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in an e-mail dated December 29, 2011
(attached), to rotate the flight path to the south would make this situation worse, while the
proposed project allows for helicopter takeoff and arrival toward the direction of both prevailing
winds and typical Santa Ana wind conditions, which is safer than a crosswind condition.
Under the proposed Project, the previously approved helistop would be relocated from an area
near the northeast corner of the Phase I hospital building to two new locations including an
interim location near the northwest corner of future Medical Office Building 2 for use during
preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be
constructed during a later phase. As conditioned by the City Council in the PA10 -0194 Major
Modification, the applicant is to commence construction of the future hospital tower (hospital
bed tower 2) foundation within 5 years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase
I hospital building (hospital bed tower 1; Certificate of Occupancy obtained from the California
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development [OSHPD] on July 19, 2013), or no later
than February 8, 2019. The Modification application also includes an approximately 5,000
square foot single story storage building for non- hazardous material storage (including disaster
supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) that would be
constructed at the site of the previously approved helistop identified in the previously approved
11
project and the environmental analysis performed for the 2008 Final Supplemental EIR. The
total square footage of all the buildings at build -out of the project would increase from 566,160
square feet approved in 2011 to 571,160 square feet with the addition of the proposed 5,000
square foot storage.
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed project on February
13, 2014, and found the project to be consistent with the Countywide Policies of the 2004
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions:
111. No operations (takeoffs or landings) shall be conducted until such time as the
State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has
issued a Site Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to
Sections 3525 through 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory
Circular 150/5390 -2B, Heliport Design.
3. Establishment and operations shall comply with the recommendations and
requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013.
4. Helicopter idle time shall be minimized as much as possible.
5. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) requests that
Temecula Valley Hospital consider returning to ALUC to seek advisory
comments regarding mitigation of noise impacts on surrounding properties in the
event that the average number of monthly operations exceeds sixteen (16) within
any given quarterly period."
It should be noted that medical helicopter flights are currently occurring to and from the
Temecula Valley Hospital under approval from the Riverside County Fire Chief. Consistent with
the California Public Utilities Code (Section 2662.1), the Riverside County Fire Chief approved
Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency Medical Services landing site for intermittent
emergency helicopter operations as described in the attached letters dated April 23, 2014 and
March 16, 2015 from the Riverside County Fire Department.
As identified in the Supplemental EIR, the hospital operator predicts, on average, eight flights
per month, although actual frequency would vary depending on the timing of medical
emergencies and needed transport for critical care patients. Temecula Valley Hospital has
provided flight data indicating that since the hospital began operations in October, 2013, a total
of 47 flights related to the hospital have occurred. The maximum number of flights in any month
occurred in May, 2014, with seven (7) flights during that month. The average number of flights
since the opening of the hospital is 3.4 per month. The data also indicates that 96% of these
flights have been for outbound patients (2 flights, or 4% of the total, were for training purposes),
and that the majority of these flights (53 %) have been for critically ill children needing transport
out of Temecula Valley Hospital to Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego. In addition, 17 flights
(36 %) have been to UCSD Medical Center for various patient needs including intracranial
bleeding, stroke, and neurosurgery. Other flights have included a single flight (2 %) to Loma
Linda University Medical Center for a rattlesnake bite, a single flight (2 %) to Riverside
Community Hospital for major pediatric trauma, and a single flight (2 %) involving Rady
Children's Hospital staff for training purposes.
While the Emergency Medical Services landing site meets the short term needs of the hospital
and the community, it is important that the hospital include a helistop facility so that aesthetic,
hazard, and noise impacts can be minimized and medical helicopter flight safety can be
maximized. Further, it is important for the hospital to be able to utilize medical helicopter flights
for the following public benefits as provided by Temecula Valley Hospital (as included in
attached Temecula Valley Hospital letter):
"Helicopter transports include a critical care team which has advanced scope of
practice to continue the same level of care initiated at the hospital. The clinical
need for rapid transportation into or out of a hospital are predominantly for the
following reasons:
Rapid access to specialty services requiring time - limited treatments such
as stroke care.
Access to specialty services only available at a few centers, such as
critical pediatric care, trauma and burn services.
The most common patients who have been flown by helicopter out of Temecula
Valley Hospital have been critically ill children. When a critically ill pediatric
patient is flown to Rady Children's Hospital San Diego or another Children's
Hospital, the helicopter arrives quickly with a team that includes a pediatric
specialty nurse and a pediatric physician who come into the hospital's ER, speak
with the ER physician caring for the patient to appropriately transition care, and
then accompanies the critically ill child back to the Children's Hospital. A child's
hemodynamic stability can change in an instant. It is imperative to get them to
the specialized services they need as quickly as possible and to send them from
TVH [Temecula Valley Hospital] with the best team of providers possible helps
ensure the best possible outcome.
Additional critical patients who are transferred out via helicopter include patients
who require very specialized lifesaving procedures such as certain types of brain
and heart vessel aneurysm repair. When trying to save a brain that is bleeding
or a major heart vessel that has dissected every second counts. These types of
patients need to get transported with a critical care team and cannot afford to be
held up in traffic. They do not have time to spare.
In addition to transferring out critical patients, as a STEMI [heart attack]
Receiving Center and a Stroke Ready Hospital, Temecula Valley Hospital also
receives in critically ill patients. There are occasions when due to distance,
remote access location, or a traffic situation, it is important to be able to transfer
patients to Temecula Valley Hospital via helicopter to maximize the opportunity to
provide timely lifesaving care.
Without a helistop, hospitals address the need for critical care transports through
these options:
The most frequently utilized option is to call 911 and transport in
ground ambulance staffed with paramedics.
o Paramedics have a more limited scope of practice compared
with a critical care team, thus must cease medications and
interventions during transport.
Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic
congestion.
Utilizing 911 ambulances for these transports takes the 911
ambulance out of service in the community for an extended
time.
An option to 911 ambulance transportation is to utilize critical care
ground transport ambulances.
• There are fewer such ambulances available so there can be
delays in availability of this specialty ambulance.
• Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic
congestion.
Without a helistop a last option is to have a helicopter land at a
remote off -site location such as an airport, park or field. The critical
care response team takes a ground ambulance to the hospital to pick
up the patient and returns to the helicopter to pick up the patient and
returns to the helicopter for flight out.
• This option provides significant enough time delay that it is
typically impractical.
• This option ties up the local fire department engines because
they have to "secure' the off -site landing area and provide
ground to air radio communications for safety. This takes the
911 fire engines out of service to the community for a period of
time.
In critical medical situations, there is a correlation between the speed of
response and a favorable outcome for the patient. When a hospital does not
have a helistop care for patients can suffer. Patients in the community do not
have rapid access to the specialty services they need, and upon case review
their outcomes are affected in an undesirable way. Having a helistop at a
hospital provides the community with all potential options to receive rapid access
to any care required at a specialty center with no change in the level of care
during transport."
Site Plan
As discussed above, the Project would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations, including an interim location near the west side of the hospital site for use during
preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the east end of the roof of a future
hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase of the project (Phase IV). The Project
would also allow for the construction of an approximately 5,000 square foot, single -story storage
building (to be constructed in Phase Lb) for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster
supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located
at the site of the previously approved helistop.
Access to the site will not change as a result of the Project. Parking for build -out of the project
will increase by three spaces (from 1,278 spaces approved in 2011 to 1,281 spaces as
proposed) as a result of three new parking spaces being included adjacent to the proposed
storage building. Total parking spaced required by the Temecula Municipal Code for the
Project, including the proposed modifications, is 902 spaces, and a total of 1,281 spaces will be
provided, thereby exceeding the requirements of the Municipal Code. The approved plans
show 512,734 square feet (33.3 %) of landscaped area on the hospital site and the proposed
plans show 507,734 square feet (33.0 %) of landscaped are, which is consistent with the 25%
required landscape area per the Municipal Code.
Architecture
The earth -toned stucco proposed storage building will match the exterior materials and colors
of the existing hospital, including a cornice along the roofline on all sides of the building. The
proposed building will also include windows (with bronze tinted exterior glazing on the exterior
and drywall infill on the interior) on the north, south, and east elevations of the building. The
west elevation of the building will face the service yard area of the hospital complex and will
include a 10' x 12' roll up service door and a man door. To match the base material on the
existing hospital building, the proposed storage building will include an Indian Red stucco
wainscot at the base of the building. No changes are proposed to the elevations and
architecture for the previously approved buildings on the Project site.
Landscaping
The landscape plans for the have been updated to remove sod from the previously approved
helistop site /proposed storage building site and to include landscaping around the proposed
storage building consistent with the onsite landscaping, including ground cover, shrubs and
trees. Proposed ground cover around the storage building will consist of Prostrate Rosemary,
with Deer Grass and Fountain Grass to complement the landscaping on the surrounding
hospital site. Crape Myrtle trees will also be provided at this location.
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 (33.0%
proposed).
Access /Circulation
No changes are proposed to the previously approved access to the site or to the internal drive
lanes for build out of the Project site. Minor revisions to internal drive lanes and the parking
area associated with the Phase II Medical Office Building will be necessary to accommodate the
interim helistop location at the western side of the hospital site. However, adequate parking to
meet Municipal Code requirements will be achieved through all phases of development of the
hospital site.
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Union Tribune on April 2, 2015 and mailed to
the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius, thereby addressing legal noticing
requirements. In addition, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all residents and property
owners of record within the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The helistop was included in the hospital Project that was evaluated in the original EIR in 2006,
which was certified by the City Council. The 2008 Supplemental EIR, which was also certified
by the City Council, further evaluated issues that the Riverside County Superior Court found to
be inadequately address in the original 2006 EIR. Environmental impacts related to the helistop
were considered to be adequately analyzed in the 2006 EIR by the court and, therefore, were
10
not revisited in the 2008 Supplemental EIR. The 2006 EIR determined that with operation of the
helistop, nearby residents could experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that
could be considered annoying (2006 Draft EIR, page 4 -59) and concluded that the impact would
be significant and unavoidable.
Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the previously adopted Final EIR, Supplemental
EIR, and EIR Addendum for the Project was prepared for this Modification application. The
public review period for the Supplemental EIR was from November 12, 2014 thru December 26,
2014.
Six comment letters (attached) were received on the Draft Supplemental EIR and responses to
those comments, which are included in the attached Final Supplemental EIR, were mailed to the
commenters on March 31, 2015. Concerns raised in the comment letters focus on the following
concerns:
• Belief that "The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 2007
Court order in approving of the original (2008) helistop permit' and that there is no valid
"helistop EIR" to be supplemented.
• Belief that the lack of a trauma center or newborn services means that "there is no
urgency to use Helicopters for transportation of patients' and that the hospital should be
able to provide adequate patient care by stabilizing patients and transport patients by
ambulance if transport is necessary.
• Belief that there is "no evidence that medical helicopter[s] in fact saved more lives than
[a] traditional ambulance" and that only extremely rural locations can benefit from
medical helicopter services
• Belief that "helicopters are prone to crash"
• Concerns with noise pollution, vibration, dust, and landing lights
A comment letters and detailed responses to all comments are provided in the attached Final
Supplemental EIR.
The Supplemental EIR prepared for the proposed concluded that the No project Alternative
would result in greater aesthetics and noise impacts than would occur by the proposed project,
and that the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and
hazards impacts than would occur by the proposed project. As a result, the Supplemental EIR
concluded that the proposed Project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
In the area of noise, the Supplemental EIR prepared for the proposed Project concludes that
environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation as a result of
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity and
exposure of persons to excessive noise levels as a result of helicopter operations. Therefore,
as was the case with the certified 2006 EIR, the Supplemental EIR for the proposed Project
includes a statement of overriding considerations for noise impacts for the benefits it provides to
the public in the way of emergency medical services as discussed above.
Noise Exemptions
Two important noise exemptions should be noted: 1) Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the
Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the
11
course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers,
emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation,
sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile ";
and 2) Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section
21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local
ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or
restrict flights due to noise.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010.F)
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 Modification to a Development Plan 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. As designed and
conditioned, the Project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the
General Plan. 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 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 as the Project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts
upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the
General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes.
Conditional Use Permit (Section 17.04.010. E)
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
The proposed Modification to a Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan and
the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-
0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the
previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during
preliminary phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be
constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot, single -
story storage building for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens,
and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the
previously approved helistop 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). In addition, the 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.
12
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The proposed Modification to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the
previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
Although the Supplemental EIR identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the Project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels" it also
identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts
sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties,
including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility
personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment
used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile" and the Supplemental EIR identifies
that limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a),
which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that
restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due
to noise. As such, the proposed Project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition
and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use
modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code
and Section 21662.4.(a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses,
buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital
complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses,
buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or
structures.
The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other
development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning
Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, 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 Project is in compliance with the development standards of the
Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks,
parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading
areas, 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 Modification to the conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community. The purpose of the Modification to the helistop location is to address
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a
manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics,
hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the
Modification to the Conditional Use Permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that
the Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
13
That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Conditional
Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the
Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.
The decision to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the Project for a
Conditional Use Permit will be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole
before the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
Vicinity Map
Plan Reductions
PC Resolution — Major Modification to a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit
Exhibit A — Draft CC Resolution
Exhibit B — Draft Conditions of Approval
PC Resolution — Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit A — Draft CC Resolution
Exhibit B -- Findings in Facts in Support of Findings
Exhibit C — Mitigation Monitoring Program
Final Supplemental EIR
Adopted 2006 Final EIR (available from City Clerk's Office of the City of Temecula upon
request)
Adopted 2008 Final Supplemental EIR (available from City Clerk's Office of the City of
Temecula upon request)
Adopted 2011 EIR Addendum (available from City Clerk's Office of the City of Temecula upon
request)
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission letter dated March 4, 2014
Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics e-mail dated December 29, 2011
Riverside County Fire Department letter dated April 23, 2014
Riverside County Fire Department letter dated March 16, 2015
Temecula Valley Hospital letter dated March 9, 2015
Public Correspondence
Notice of Public Hearing
14
VICINITY MAP
CO C
p� Op
SANTIAGO RO O �
L y y v
m p9 9p CgLLE NO.1�' y� �O
O� 2
2 T
� mp
'L PL
O
c C'�,DO DR
LU> PSS
0
U ?�O
5�
O�
m
p
a
m
A
NT T
Y pp0N 9y'L
O
IOV1A BANDE
I
r
r
m
D
A
Ye
91'A
m ��
1-P. CgM
LE
ENP.
OALq FN� yLIARI
lgA 4� i
CORTE ALGEZS A `>
CqL <f REOONDS�
.o� MARGgA'lTq RQ �O
R
QUO
F'1'QO
k"
.off
RANGHO
JN1tV
RANGyO co
Y
OAV�D LN
�� ORLN 2
GABRIEU -S
SAMANTHA LN
,WBEO SRSS VN PO
\,r0
0
O
G Yp OG"pc
(! r Z 2
O Z �
GARvOS
SPgPN
QV a YJ
IC/"Y � � �v �$ � �i v
f O'9,p 0 500 PLO X O i o 0 2
/ RABAGO
er\20 AVj,,REZA
OP CALLS S
Oy
e(T' Project Site
G
RD ..
CAMPANULA WY
GZ
CASS��
O
z
D
CL
m
A
m
D
m
rn
G
O
NT
3AO \-E SSORSRO
R
FQy z
/t-p�y O,�Q,
SS,Cl'�nn` VO2 P
V1A OPP+ JP'
QPy� �NO G PE
gS�
V IA GORDOBq VIA
t
VIA r
CO Sq(TIO .2s
C,yMN",410b �4'O
4rF
elMONO yPySY RD
GOR
Y9 SJO�� v
PLAN REDUCTIONS
...........
------------
..... . ...........
------------
C=;)
7",120
INCREMENT 3 - CORE & SHELL
PACAGE (MISC STRUCTURAL ITEMS)
SITE
s A1.1
P�QJ— 0-1
LU111 -o
11
One _R..
Universal Healfin Services, Inc
as
'Do
-'es I �Ilvlsc I-L-11
vs 10 Hill
7�7
C.U.P. Modification
r . .......
C, Sub..f
41
Tedrecola Medical
'ii
UHS Center
Scpwm1
ase-s
— �::::: -1
ci
a I
It
ig
new
IuAl
IDARTOLD RD
LEGLIR
F.
Iff,
--
'I
u
o all
-'—v— — - ---
Exfu
9;1 E5
Hill 1 1
i
12D
ffi BUsec. ..v-
IT E
vici
!i��l
p 2 T, $I :A-N
A.01
COIP. MAJOR MOO SUBMITTAL 5
WEST ELEVATON
EAST ELEVATION
■
n
n
■
n t
n
■
n
■
WEST ELEVATON
EAST ELEVATION
n
■
n
n
■
n t
n
■
n
n
■
n t
n
■
n
n
■
A
■
n
n
■
n
■
n
n
I
m
p
n
n
■
n
n
■
n t
n
■
n
n
■
n t
n
■
n
■ n
■
n ■
■
l
l i n
e
n
■
n
■
111 ■
it n
■
n
■
to
■
Its ■
It n
■
at
■
n
■
$IN ■
n
■
n
n
■
n t
n
■
n
n
■
n t
n
■
n
■ n
■
n ■
■
n
■ n
■
n ■
r.
i
i
tl
ism IIIIIII
ON N M I s ■
n ■ n ■ n ■
n ■ n ■ n ■_
pwrlcni, Inc
M1 INC
-h
M1
h
4
t c.0 v. mxm�am•,
4
1C Su�riM11L
T 4
�- UM9 iamcula Ngkal Genle.
■ fi ■ n ■ n f t ■ t ■ ON /
■ 011 n ■ n■ n ■ n n ■
■ n■ n ■ n ON ■ n■ u ■
W4
^'wt
^wtlti
L.UP. Wy0E1Y &ABTA,
4
h
4 j
NouTN ELEVATON
■ fi ■ n ■ n f t ■ t ■ ON /
■ 011 n ■ n■ n ■ n n ■
■ n■ n ■ n ON ■ n■ u ■
W4
^'wt
^wtlti
L.UP. Wy0E1Y &ABTA,
EEM3WiN 4
r rrxnr i
EF MVIElT 5
HMCArchltects
CU W BEVEL U, ,
.raa.
4�D
EEME $
rurwE uoaurtx __•
.w •mrRi�
:�8
n`�B
II I
EEMIggTX 3
COD
M A2.1
MfiYYRY OFnI
Permanen! Helistop
Location Atop
Second Tower Addition
Se11ReE. 11M —,
Caltrans Requires Obstruction Lights
on Summerhouse Apartment Buildings
for this Flight Path.
�-- FAA Required Tree Removal and /or
Topping Requires Fish & Game
Coordination
9
'N
.y
Temecula Valley ii,Tal Hebs1W 9EIR. 130652
Figure 2.4
Existing and Proposed Interim and
Permanent Helistop Locations
L
/ • bo �l
/ ' 041; vim.
/
mtica M�Pr�uwm �•
[�°?t•®
� -� -r-• -pia
SQL 's- �- er- rr- �r °��.�":3:B•
-
t+�l
E�
�s;
'off
/ MWME
MrzrsNU•
^�
wr ..•n.
//
/ • bo �l
/ ' 041; vim.
/
mtica M�Pr�uwm �•
INTERIM HELIPORT TO BE
REMOVED UPON COMPLETION
OF PERMANENT HELIPORT
ON FUTURE MBED nTOWER
gas
LEGEND 1
THIS SHEET FOR GENERAL REFERENCE AND AGENCY APPROVAL$ ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
f=. . _ m_
u.r. -..mu
�s;
'off
/ MWME
MrzrsNU•
^�
wr ..•n.
//
dr'
.:.a.
'
HELIPORT DETAIL
• -. ��w
INTERIM HELIPORT TO BE
REMOVED UPON COMPLETION
OF PERMANENT HELIPORT
ON FUTURE MBED nTOWER
gas
LEGEND 1
THIS SHEET FOR GENERAL REFERENCE AND AGENCY APPROVAL$ ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
f=. . _ m_
u.r. -..mu
TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL
_
�U
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR
'� I I
wteaxwtn SeMnt brz
REVISED HELIPAD LOCATION
___
�\
d0/Ek7i10
�
••,i._.a
I MEX NAP v
—.. _.
N O
-=
0
1,
mlena axs�� Aces
1
�
Temecula
Medical
Center
w.
Temecula, CA.
RANCHO � "_ � •.
`. m zz
U.
I
i
'
«
v..9
_TQCMEC.,L�A PARKWAaY T1.
k.
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL
r —
uuvn
unm
PRFI IHM�IYGR.UNY[i F1..V:
HM
o
_
RtvI5k011klIPAD L1KAfNN
•
HMC A ChitKts
FIRE1_ANE
KEYEpTE6
71'x71'
NOTES
PRELIMINARYIRRI� PL
Z
FIRE.I_ANE
<a>
w
?'x71'
PREL RYLNIDS P
PREMMIINRY IRR�1R]N PLW
3i+ I
L
PRELWMRY LANDSCME PLAN
1
/
A2.0
PC RESOLUTION
MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PC RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE
A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13 -0141,
A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(PA07 -0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-
0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO
RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO
TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN INTERIM
LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY PROJECT
PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF
OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE
CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO
CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE
FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING TO BE
LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE
IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959 - 080 - 026)"
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
( "UHS "), filed Planning Application No. PA04 -0462, a General Plan Amendment; on
October 12, 2005 filed PA05 -0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development
Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04 -0463, a Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04 -0571, a Tentative Parcel
Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property
consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway
79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007 through 959 - 080 -010
( "Project').
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ").
C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or
opposition to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October
28, 2005.
G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning
Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did
testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -01
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -04, recommending approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463).
J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all
persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of
information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 06 -05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04 -0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05 -0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04 -0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04 -0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 - 080 -001 THROUGH 959 - 080 -004
AND 959 - 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA04 -0462, PA05 -0302, PA04 -0463,
PA04- 0571)."
L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use
Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04 -0463) at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06 -07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for
the Project (PA04- 0463).
N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of
Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal
Health Services, Inc.
O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the
City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and
permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project
into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). The Riverside
County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed
in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was
significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation
measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts.
P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final
Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare,
and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources;
(4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency.
Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the
extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the
Project.
R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new
Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and
circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007.
S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning
Application Nos. PA07 -0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change),
PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201
(Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference,
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007
through 959 - 080 -010 ( "Project "), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support of or opposition to this matter.
T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -01 recommending
that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project
and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -04, recommending approval of the
Development Plan (PA07- 0200).
V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its
approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04 -0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-
0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04 -0463,
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04 -0571, Tentative Parcel Map
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007
through 959 - 080 -010.
W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan
(PA07 -0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support
or opposition to this matter.
X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08 -10,
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA
PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 -080-
001 THROUGH 959 - 080 -004 AND 959 - 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA07 -0198,
PA07 -0199, PA07 -0200, PA07 -0201, PA07- 0202). The new Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses
the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution.
Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.,
filed Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner
in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-
28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10 -0194
and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project.
CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application
No. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di
testify either in support or opposition to this matter.
DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11 -17
approving Planning Application No. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an
addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major
Modification at a noticed public hearing.
EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed
Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, a Major Modification Application to a
Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a
permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a
later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage
building for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and
storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of
the previously approved helistop.
FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
GG. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were
prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of
Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as
required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House
from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have
been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of
Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590;
the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula
website.
HH. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
II. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve Planning Application No. PA13 -0141 subject to and based upon the
findings set forth hereunder.
JJ. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending that
the City Council approve the Application, hereby makes the following findings as
required by Section 17.05.030.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a
development plan and by Section 17.04.010.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code
for a Conditional Use Permit:
Development Code Findings (Section 17.05.030.E):
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 Modification to a Development Plan 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. As designed and conditioned the project is consistent with
all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. 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.
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 as the project has been designed to
minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been
reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code,
and uniform building and fire codes.
Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 17.04.010.E):
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code;
The proposed Conditional Use Permit modification is consistent with the General
Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a
Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases
and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed
during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5, 000 square foot single
story storage building for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster
supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs)
to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop 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). 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.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures;
The proposed modifications to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are
consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature,
condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect
on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR
identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels ", it also
identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal
Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of
executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers,
emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes,
without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel,
whether stationary or mobile" and the Supplemental EIR identifies that limitations
on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4. (a),
which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local
ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day
or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed project
modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use
modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula
Municipal Code and Section 21662.4. (a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the
proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible
with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital 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 the Development Code and
required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with
other uses in the neighborhood;
The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, 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
council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The
project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development
Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks,
parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting
the yard, parking and loading areas, 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 Modification to the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the
Modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes
impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and
helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the
Modification to the use permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure
that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
the community.
E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the
record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal;
The decision to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the
proposed Modification to a Conditional Use Permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes
the following environmental finding and determinations in connection with the
recommendation for approval of Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, a Major
Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula
Valley Hospital (the "Project').
A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January
22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011
the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report.
B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff
prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the
"Project'), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that
study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to
the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA
Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the
hospital project.
C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all
agencies and persons that might be affected by the project.
D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be
addressed in the SEIR for the Project.
E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a
SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development
Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based
upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial
evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity
of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do
exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously
identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared.
F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the
public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public
comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014
through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public
review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development,
located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library
located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website.
G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a
response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning
Commission and Incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings.
H. The Planning Commission has reviewed the SEIR and corresponding
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at
the April 15, 2015 public hearing and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1)
the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding
Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial
evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to
helicopter noise; and (3) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent judgment of the
Planning Commission.
The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, the Addendum for the
modification application, and the second SFEIR and all other materials, which constitute
the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, is
the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents
are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning
Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Major Modification Application to
a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a
permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later
phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building
for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of
excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the
previously approved helistop on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of
Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor
Parcel Number 959 - 080 -026, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA13 -0141,
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 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 15th day of April, 2015.
Pat Kight, Chairman
ATTEST:
Armando G. Villa, AICP
Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Armando G. Villa, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. was duly and regularly
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting
thereof held on the 15th day of April, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Armando G. Villa, AICP
Secretary
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CC RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA13 -0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07 -0200) AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (PA07 -0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY
HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN
INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY
PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON
THE ROOF OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE
CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO
CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE
FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING FOR NOW
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE TO BE LOCATED
AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959 - 080 -026)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings.
A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
( "UHS "), filed Planning Application No. PA04 -0462, a General Plan Amendment; on
October 12, 2005 filed PA05 -0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development
Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04 -0463, a Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04 -0571, a Tentative Parcel
Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property
consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway
79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007 through 959 - 080 -010
( "Project').
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ").
C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or
opposition to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October
28, 2005.
G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning
Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did
testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -01
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -04, recommending approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463).
J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all
persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of
information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 06 -05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04 -0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05 -0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04 -0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04 -0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 - 080 -001 THROUGH 959 - 080 -004
AND 959 - 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA04 -0462, PA05 -0302, PA04 -0463,
PA04- 0571)."
L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use
Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04 -0463) at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06 -07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for
the Project (PA04- 0463).
N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of
Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal
Health Services, Inc.
O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the
City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and
permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project
into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). The Riverside
County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed
in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was
significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation
measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts.
P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final
Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare,
and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources;
(4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency.
Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the
extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the
Project.
R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new
Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and
circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007.
S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning
Application Nos. PA07 -0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change),
PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201
(Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference,
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959- 080 -001 through 959- 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007
through 959 - 080 -010 ( "Project "), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support of or opposition to this matter.
T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -01 recommending
that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project
and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -04, recommending approval of the
Development Plan (PA07- 0200).
V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its
approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04 -0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-
0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04 -0463,
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04 -0571, Tentative Parcel Map
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007
through 959 - 080 -010.
W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan
(PA07 -0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support
or opposition to this matter.
X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08 -10,
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA
PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 -080-
001 THROUGH 959 - 080 -004 AND 959 - 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA07 -0198,
PA07 -0199, PA07 -0200, PA07 -0201, PA07- 0202). The new Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses
the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution.
Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.,
filed Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner
in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-
28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10 -0194
and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project.
CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application
No. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di
testify either in support or opposition to this matter.
DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11 -17
approving Planning Application No. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an
addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major
Modification at a noticed public hearing.
EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed
Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, a Major Modification Application to a
Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a
permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a
later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage
building for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and
storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of
the previously approved helistop.
FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
GG. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were
prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of
Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as
required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House
from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have
been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of
Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590;
the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula
website.
HH. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
Il. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council approve Planning Application No. PA13 -0141 and adopt a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for noise
impacts, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
JJ. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and
environmental review on April 28, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and
did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
KK. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the City Council adopted Resolution No. subject to and based
upon the findings set forth hereunder.
LL. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the
Application, hereby makes the following findings:
Development Code Findings (Section 17.05.030.E):
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 Modification to a Development Plan 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. As designed and conditioned the project is consistent with
all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. 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.
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 as the project has been designed to
minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been
reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code,
and uniform building and fire codes.
Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 17.04.010.E):
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code;
The proposed Conditional Use Permit modification is consistent with the General
Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a
Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases
and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed
during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single
story storage building for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster
supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs)
to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop 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). 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.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures;
The proposed modifications to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are
consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature,
condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect
on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR
identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels ", it also
identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal
Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of
executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers,
emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes,
without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel,
whether stationary or mobile" and the Supplemental EIR identifies that limitations
on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4. (a),
which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local
ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day
or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed project
modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use
modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula
Municipal Code and Section 21662.4. (a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the
proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible
with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital 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 the Development Code and
required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with
other uses in the neighborhood;
The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, 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
council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The
project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development
Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks,
parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting
the yard, parking and loading areas, 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 modification to the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the
modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes
impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and
helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the
modification to the use permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure
that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
the community.
E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the
record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal;
The decision to conditionally approve the proposed modification application for a
conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a
whole before the City Council.
Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection
with the approval of Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, a Major Modification to the
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula Valley Hospital (the
( "Project'):
A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January
22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011
the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report.
B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff
prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the
"Project'), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that
study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to
the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA
Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the
hospital project.
C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all
agencies and persons that might be affected by the project.
D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be
addressed in the SEIR for the Project.
E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a
SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development
Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based
upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial
evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity
of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do
exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously
identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared.
F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the
public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public
comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014
through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public
review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development,
located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library
located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website.
G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a
response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning
Commission and Incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings.
H. The Planning Commission has reviewed the SEIR and corresponding
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at
the April 15, 2015 public hearing and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1)
the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding
Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial
evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to
helicopter noise; and (3) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent judgment of the
Planning Commission.
I. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, the Addendum for the
modification application, and the second SFEIR and all other materials, which constitute
the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, is
the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents
are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning
Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
J. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 4. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
approves the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and
Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the
previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use
during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future
hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately
5,000 square foot single story storage building for non - hazardous material storage
(including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to
allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop on 35.3
acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Number 959 - 080 -026, as set forth in
Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, 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 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it
shall become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 28th day of April, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl - Olson, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl - Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of April, 2015, by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl - Olson, City Clerk
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA13 -0141
Project Description: A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and
Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital
to relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations
including an interim location for use during preliminary project
phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower
to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an
approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for
non - hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens,
and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be
located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre
hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula
Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road at 31700
Temecula Parkway.
Assessor's Parcel No.
MSHCP Category:
DIF Category:
TUMF Category:
Quimby Category:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DIVISION
eI.XII�IY�II�YI:
Commercial
Service Commercial /Office
Service Commercial /Office
NA (Non - Residential Project)
April 28, 2015
April 28, 2017
Within 48 Hours of the Approval
Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of
Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination for the Supplemental 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 Division the
check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure
of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
2. Indemnification of the City. 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.
3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within (one, two, or three years - choose one) 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 (one, two, or three year -
choose one) period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with
a Conditional Use Permit.
4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being
filed 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.
5. Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply
with all mitigation measures identified within EIR, Supplemental EIR, and second Supplemental
EIR for the Temecula Valley Hospital.
6. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially
conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division.
7. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously
maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is
determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community
Development 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.
8. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers,
equipment, walls, or other structures.
9. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels,
powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain
system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval:
a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately.
b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite.
c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters.
d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain.
e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times.
10. Paint Inspection. The applicant shall paint a three - foot -by- three -foot section of the building
for Planning Division inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building.
11. Photographic Prints.. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division 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.
12. Materials and Colors. 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 staff's 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 Conditions 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
Storage building main body color
Storage building base color
Storage building aluminum shadow box windows
Storage building tinted glass
Storage building stucco cornice
Color
Dryvit #456, "Oyster4 Shell" in Dryvit
"Sandblast" texture to match existing
hospital building
Indian Red to match existing hospital building
Medium bronze to match existing hospital
Building
Bronze tint to match existing hospital building
Indian Red to match existing hospital building
trim
13. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or
revisions to the approval of this project.
14. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling
bin, as well as regular solid waste containers.
15. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized
on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan.
16. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the
construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover.
17. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing
plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community
Development.
18. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section
17.03.080 of the City's Development Code.
19. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development,
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 business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of 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 Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in
addition to, and not in -lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development,
Planning Commission, and City Council to review, 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.
20. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid
waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the
Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste
hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may
haul demolition and construction debris.
21. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public
Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
22. Compliance with Previous Approvals. Except where modified by this approval, all Conditions of
Approval for Planning Application Nos. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification), PA07 -0200
(Development Plan), and PA7 -0202 (Conditional Use Permit) remain in effect and shall be
complied with.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit
23. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division 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.
24. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be
installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right -of -way, subject to
review and approval by the Director of Community Development.
25. Archaeological /Cultural Resources Grading Note. 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 Community
Development at his /her sole discretion may require the property owner 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 Community Development 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
Community Development 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 Community Development."
26. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the
Grading Plan: "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."
27. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section
of the Grading Plan: "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."
28. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the
Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved."
29. MSHCP Pre - Construction Survey. A 30 -day preconstruction survey, in accordance with
MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The
results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior
to scheduling the pre - grading meeting with Public Works.
30. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the
Grading Plan: "No grubbing /clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the
pre - grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for
burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey
that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of
burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present
on -site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. I'
burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on -site during the preconstruction survey,
then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities
may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31,
with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through
August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and
appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place.
This determination must be made by a qualified biologist."
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
31. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance
on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of
building permit issuance. The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the
Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
32. Downspouts. All downspouts shall be internalized.
33. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15,
Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the
appropriate City fee.
34. Photometric Plan. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot, to
the Planning Division, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the
Riverside County Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655. The parking lot light standards shall be
placed in such a way as to not adversely affect the growth potential of the parking lot trees.
35. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping
and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans
shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set.
These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by
these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus,
species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with
the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho
California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per
the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved
Grading Plan.
36. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note
stating, 'Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be
conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation
equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or
discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval
to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will
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 are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed
consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify
property landscape maintenance for release of the one -year landscape maintenance bond."
The applicant /owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections.
37. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the
plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the
first irrigation inspection."
38. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage
calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the
total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant
shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable
water budget.
39. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to
the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail 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.
40. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape
maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The
first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will
verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any
adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will
require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be
conducted. This will 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 are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have
been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third
inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one -year landscape
maintenance bond." The applicant /owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule
inspections.
41. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas
and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from
streets and adjacent property.
42. Hardscaping. The landscape plans shall include all hardscaping.
43. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough
grading plans including all structural setback measurements.
44. WQMP Treatment Devices. All WQMP treatment devices, including design details, shall be
shown on the construction landscape plans. If revisions are made to the WQMP design that
result in any changes to the conceptual landscape plans after entitlement, the revisions will
be shown on the construction landscape plans, subject to the approval of the Director of
Community Development.
45. Utility Screening. 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 ensure that there are no conflicts with trees.
Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit
46. Letter of Substantial Conformance. The applicant shall submit a letter of substantial
conformance, subject to field verification by the Director of Community Development or
his /her designee. Said letter of substantial conformance shall be prepared by the project
designer and shall indicate that all plant materials and irrigation system components have
been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape and irrigation plans. Such
letter of substantial conformance shall be submitted prior to scheduling for the final
inspection.
47. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. 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 Community Development. The plants
shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly
constructed and in good working order.
48. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the
Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in
accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with
the Planning Division 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 Community Development, the bond shall be released upon
request by the applicant.
49. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking
areas and striping shall be installed.
50. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be
complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
51. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the
Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes /standards at no cost to any
governmental agency.
52. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the
conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents
approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions
may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
53. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for onsite improvements (outside of public
right -of -way) shall be obtained from Public Works.
54. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction,
encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained from Public Works for public
offsite improvements.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
55. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per
the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
56. Grading /Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading /erosion &
sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to
the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all
construction -phase pollution - prevention controls to adequately address non - permitted runoff.
Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at:
http:// www .cityoftemecuIa.org/Temecula/ Government/ PublicWorks /engineeringeonstmanual.
htm
57. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and
entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements.
58. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the
State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit for
Construction Activities and shall provide the following:
a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB);
b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and
c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP
Developer (QSD)
Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's
storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) shall be
generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be
routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review
www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link:
http: / /www.waterboards. ca.gov /water issues /prog rams /stormwater /construction.shtml
59. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O &M Agreement. Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) and O &M Agreement. The developer shall submit a revision to
the original WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) that was approved with
the original grading permit. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the
updated project- specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, the updated
WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O &M) Agreement shall be revised accordingly and
submitted for review and approval. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below:
http:// www .cityoftemecula.org[Temecula/ Government /PUbl!cWorks/WQMPandNPDES/WQ
M P. htm
60. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly
accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall
be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and /or
diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage
improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property
owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if
possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted.
61. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted
to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil
conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and
preliminary pavement sections.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s)
62. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer -of- record
certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's
engineer -of- record certifying compaction of the building pad(s).
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
63. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans
and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all onsite
work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP
Operation and Maintenance agreement.
64. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable
utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the
completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works.
65. Replacement of Damaged Improvements /Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or
broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of
Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City
Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional
Code Section 8771.
66. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies
and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
General Requirements
67. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions
and building setbacks on plans to include:
a. All ground floor units to be adaptable.
b. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
e. Path of travel from public right -of -way to all public areas on site, such as club house,
trash enclose tot lots and picnic areas.
68. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan
review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside
Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and
other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety
Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining
property or public rights -of -way.
69. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by
requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi - family
residential projects or a recorded final map for single - family residential projects.
70. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School
District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or
exemption from School Mitigation Fees.
71. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit
approvals prior to commencement of any construction work.
72. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards,
and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits.
73. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits.
74. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On -site sewer and water plans will require separate
approvals and permits.
75. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project,
indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance
9.20.060, for any site within one - quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours
of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is
permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays,
At Plan Review Submittal
76. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4)
complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval
including:
a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic,
and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work.
b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section
1207, of the 2013 edition of the California Building Code.
c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities.
d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and
the truss manufacturer engineer.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s)
77. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from
the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval.
78. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to
be removed as part of the project.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s)
79. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp
of a registered professional with original signature on the plans.
Prior to Beginning of Construction
80. Pre - Construction Meeting. A pre- construction meeting is required with the building inspector
prior to the start of the building construction.
FIRE PREVENTION
General Requirements
81. Fire Requirement. Guard posts will need to be constructed of steel not less than 4- inches in
diameter and concrete filled. They need to be set not less than 3 -feet deep in a concrete
footing of not less than a 15 -inch diameter. Top of posts shall not be less than 3 -feet above
ground (CFC Chapter 3)
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s)
82. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). For the new proposed storage building the
developer shall furnish three copies 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 Chapter 33 and Chapter
5)
83. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). The new proposed storage building will be
required to be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. For the new proposed
storage building fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for
approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building
permit.
84. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). The new proposed storage building will be
required to be equipped with a fire alarm system. For the new proposed storage building fire
alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of
alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These
plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit.
PC RESOLUTION
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE
A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA
VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND
STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT,
ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP
RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR
MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE
HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD (A.P.N. 959 - 080 - 026)"
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
( "UHS "), filed Planning Application No. PA04 -0462, a General Plan Amendment; on
October 12, 2005 filed PA05 -0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development
Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04 -0463, a Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04 -0571, a Tentative Parcel
Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property
consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway
79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007 through 959 - 080 -010
( "Project').
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ").
C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or
opposition to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October
28, 2005.
G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning
Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did
testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -01
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -04, recommending approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463).
J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all
persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of
information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 06 -05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04 -0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05 -0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04 -0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04 -0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 - 080 -001 THROUGH 959 - 080 -004
AND 959 - 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA04 -0462, PA05 -0302, PA04 -0463,
PA04- 0571)."
L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use
Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04 -0463) at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06 -07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for
the Project (PA04- 0463).
N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of
Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal
Health Services, Inc.
O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the
City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and
permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project
into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). The Riverside
County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed
in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was
significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation
measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts.
P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final
Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare,
and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources;
(4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency.
Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the
extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the
Project.
R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new
Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and
circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007.
S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning
Application Nos. PA07 -0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change),
PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201
(Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference,
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007
through 959 - 080 -010 ( "Project "), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support of or opposition to this matter.
T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -01 recommending
that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project
and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -04, recommending approval of the
Development Plan (PA07- 0200).
V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its
approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04 -0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-
0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04 -0463,
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04 -0571, Tentative Parcel Map
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007
through 959 - 080 -010.
W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan
(PA07 -0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support
or opposition to this matter.
X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08 -10,
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA
PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 -080-
001 THROUGH 959 - 080 -004 AND 959 - 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA07 -0198,
PA07 -0199, PA07 -0200, PA07 -0201, PA07- 0202). The new Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses
the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution.
Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.,
filed Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner
in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-
28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10 -0194
and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project.
CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application
No. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di
testify either in support or opposition to this matter.
DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11 -17
approving Planning Application No. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an
addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major
Modification at a noticed public hearing.
EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed
Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, a Major Modification Application to a
Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a
permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a
later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage
building for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and
storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of
the previously approved helistop.
FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
HH. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission 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 the
hearing. 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.
II. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes
the following environmental finding and determinations in connection with the
recommendation for approval of Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, a Major
Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula
Valley Hospital (the "Project').
A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January
22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011
the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report.
B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff
prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the
"Project'), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that
study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to
the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA
Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the
hospital project.
C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all
agencies and persons that might be affected by the project.
D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be
addressed in the SEIR for the Project.
E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a
SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development
Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based
upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial
evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity
of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do
exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously
identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared.
F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the
public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public
comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014
through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public
review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development,
located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library
located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website.
G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a
response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning
Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings.
H. The Planning Commission has reviewed the SEIR and corresponding
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at
the April 15, 2015 public hearing and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1)
the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding
Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial
evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to
helicopter noise; and (3) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent judgment of the
Planning Commission.
I. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, the Addendum for the
modification application, and the second SFEIR and all other materials, which constitute
the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, is
the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents
are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning
Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
Section 3. Recommendation to City Council. Based on the findings set forth in
the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the
Project as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by the
reference.
Section 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 15th day of April, 2015.
Pat Kight, Chairman
ATTEST:
Armando G. Villa, AICP
Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Armando G. Villa, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. was duly and regularly
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting
thereof held on the 15th day of April, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Armando G. Villa, AICP
Secretary
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CC RESOLUTION
CC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP
RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR
MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA
VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND
STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT
ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA
PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959 - 080 -026)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
( "UHS "), filed Planning Application No. PA04 -0462, a General Plan Amendment; on
October 12, 2005 filed PA05 -0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development
Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04 -0463, a Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04 -0571, a Tentative Parcel
Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property
consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway
79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007 through 959 - 080 -010
( "Project ").
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ").
C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or
opposition to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October
28, 2005.
G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning
Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did
testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -01
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -04, recommending approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463).
J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all
persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of
information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 06 -05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04 -0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05 -0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04 -0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04 -0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 - 080 -001 THROUGH 959 - 080 -004
AND 959 - 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA04 -0462, PA05 -0302, PA04 -0463,
PA04- 0571)."
L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use
Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04 -0463) at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06 -07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for
the Project (PA04- 0463).
N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of
Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal
Health Services. Inc.
O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the
City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and
permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project
into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). The Riverside
County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed
in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was
significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation
measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts.
P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final
Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare,
and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources;
(4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency.
Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the
extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the
Project.
R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new
Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and
circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007.
S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning
Application Nos. PA07 -0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change),
PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201
(Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference,
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007
through 959 - 080 -010 ( "Project "), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support of or opposition to this matter.
T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -01 recommending
that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project
and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -04, recommending approval of the
Development Plan (PA07- 0200).
V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its
approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04 -0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-
0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04 -0463,
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04 -0571, Tentative Parcel Map
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007
through 959 - 080 -010.
W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan
(PA07 -0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support
or opposition to this matter.
X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08 -10,
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA
PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 -080-
001 THROUGH 959 - 080 -004 AND 959 - 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA07 -0198,
PA07 -0199, PA07 -0200, PA07 -0201, PA07- 0202). The new Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses
the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution.
Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.,
filed Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner
in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-
28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10 -0194
and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project.
CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application
No. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di
testify either in support or opposition to this matter.
DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11 -17
approving Planning Application No. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an
addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major
Modification at a noticed public hearing.
EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed
Planning Application No. PA13 -0141, a Major Modification Application to a
Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07 -0202) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a
permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a
later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage
building for non - hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and
storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of
the previously approved helistop.
FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
HH. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission heard, was presented
with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative
record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing.
Il. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- recommending that the City Council
certify the Final SEIR prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, adopt Findings pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project. The
Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 15 -, thereby recommending
that the City Council approve a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit.
JJ. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
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.
KK. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will
cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if
expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
LL. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that are found to be
less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of Exhibit
A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby
incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
MM. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that are found to be
less than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of
Exhibit A to this Resolution.
NN. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as potentially
significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the
imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to
this Resolution.
00. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution.
PP. A discussion of the project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully
mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution,
which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
QQ. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and
adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation
measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit B, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full
herein.
RR. On April 28, 2015, the City Council considered the Final SEIR for the
Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this
matter.
SS. Prior to taking action the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, as well
as oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. No
comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any
substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or re- circulation of
the SEIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were
identified, nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously disclosed
environmental impacts identified.
Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula,
California does hereby:
A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the
administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which
includes the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the written and oral
comments on the Draft SEIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated
into the Final SEIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues.
B. Determine that the Final SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential
impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the
extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A,
with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed
therein.
C. Certify that the Final SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA.
D. Declare that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports,
in comments on the SEIR, the responses to comments on the SEIR, and the evidence
presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring
recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA.
Section 3. Certification of the Final SEIR. The City Council hereby certifies
the Final SEIR, adopts the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as set forth in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, adopts the Statement
of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in
full. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution
(including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final
SEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings
before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the
proceedings. The City Council further finds that the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit
A, by itself, would justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable
impacts identified in the Final SEIR or alleged to be significant in the record of
proceedings.
Section 4. Conditions of Approval. The City Council hereby imposes as a
condition on the Development Plan (PA13 -0141) each mitigation measure specified in
Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as
described in Exhibit B.
Section 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is
the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the
record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the
City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590.
Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions
of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction
shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 15th day of April, 2015.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randy Johl - Olson, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl - Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
forgoing Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of April, 2015, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl - Olson, City Clerk
*AM IM -1
FINDINGS IN FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
I. Introduction.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.
( "CEQA ") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the
"Guidelines ") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant
effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more
of the following findings:
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project,
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified
in the EIR.
B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency
and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Temecula Valley
Hospital Helistop Project (the "project "), as more fully described in the Final Supplemental EIR
(SEIR). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these
proceedings, comments on the Draft SEIR and the written responses thereto, and reports
presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's
environmental consultants.
II. Project Objectives.
As originally established in the 2006 EIR, and set forth in the SEIR, objectives that the
City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this project (the "Project Objectives ") are as follows:
• Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of
Temecula;
• Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices,
cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient
state -of- the -art facility;
• Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services;
• Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify
Temecula's employment base;
• Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in
terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the
location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental
conditions;
• Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and
vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses.
1
• Provide high - quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding
communities;
• Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with
outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices;
• Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state- of -the-
art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and
• Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the
hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the
hospital for medical procedures.
III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study
The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in November 2013, to determine
significant effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to
be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or
the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas
were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not
analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agricultural and Forest Resources; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological
Resources; (D) Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (E) Cultural Resources; (F) Geology and Soils; (G)
Hydrology and Water Quality; (H) Land Use and Planning; (1) Mineral Resources; (J) Population
and Housing; (K) Public Services; (L) Recreation; (M) Transportation and Traffic; and (N)
Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be
potentially significant and were studied in the SEIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; and (C) Noise.
A. On December 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR and circulated it to
governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the
project. The NOP requested comments within 30 days of the notice. On
December 11, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 15082(c)(1) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments
from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR. No comments were
received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant in the Initial
Study.
IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the SEIR
The Draft SEIR completed on November 12, 2014, found that the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of
environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was
made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive
discussions contained in the SEIR.
A. Aesthetics
1. The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
2
B. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
2. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would not
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
C. Noise
3. Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a
Less Than Significant Level in the SEIR
The Draft SEIR identified the potential for the project to cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of noise. No measures were identified that would mitigate impacts to noise
to a less than significant level.
VI. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation
In the environmental areas of noise there are instances where potential environmental
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below.
A. Noise
1. Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in
the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels
a. Findings
Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to
California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a),
which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt
from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to
particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise.
As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the
hospital to reduce helicopter noise.
However, changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the project to reduce the helicopter noise related
safety hazards at the equestrian trail. The mitigation measure
below is required in order to reduce this impact to the extent
practicable.
Mitigation Measure NO[-1: Prior to helicopter operations, the
Temecula Valley Hospital will develop and install signage at both
ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the
hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location
and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter
noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The
Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design,
preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related
costs.
3
Facts in Support of Findings
Although the above mitigation measure would reduce the project's
helicopter noise related safety hazard to the equestrian trail,
limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC
Section 21662.4. (a). , which states that aircraft flights for medical
purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flights due
to noise. The City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital
to reduce helicopter noise. Therefore, it is anticipated that the
nearest offsite sensitive receptors would experience a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during
helicopter operations. Therefore, impacts related to substantial
periodic increases in ambient noise levels from helicopter
overflights would be significant and unavoidable.
VII. Project Alternatives
A. Alternatives Not Evaluated in the SEIR
CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). According to CEQA Guidelines,
alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives
and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The "range of alternatives" is governed by
the "rule of reason," which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives
necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to
foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)).
CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered, Section
15126.6(f)(1) states that among the factors that may be taken into account in
determining feasibility are: site suitability; economic viability; availability of
infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and regulatory limitations;
jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire,
control or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore, an EIR need
not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified,
whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the
basic project objectives. The alternatives addressed in this SEIR were identified
in consideration of one or more of the following factors:
1. The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the
identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project;
2. The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of
the proposed project;
3. The feasibility of the alternative;
a
4. The requirement of the CEQA Guidelines to consider a "no project"
alternative; and to identify an "environmentally superior" alternative in
addition to the no project alternative (Section 15126.6(e)).
The SEIR analyzed two project alternatives. These alternatives were considered
but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various
reasons stated below.
B. Alternatives Considered in the SEIR
Alternative One — No Project Alternative (Existing Approved Helistop)
a. Summary of Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that none of the requested project
approvals are granted, and that the existing approved helistop location
would be developed. The approved helistop is located at ground level
near the northeast corner of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the
eastern property line. This alternative would include two flight paths — the
original flight path that would travel over the recently constructed Madera
Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction to and from the
project site, and a second flight path that would travel above single - family
residential areas to the west of the project site. The No Project Alternative
would also involve the addition of obstruction lights on the top of the two -
story Madera Vista apartment buildings, and removal or trimming of trees
within the offsite riparian area that is adjacent to the project site as
required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The No Project Alternative
would not include development of the proposed one -story 5,000 square
foot storage building.
b. Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative
The No Project Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project)
meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible
emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it
would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development
with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, noise impacts, and other
environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project.
Specifically, the No Project Alternative would route the helicopter flight
paths over existing the Los Ranchitos single - family residential
neighborhood to the north and the Madera Vista apartments to the east,
which would increase safety hazards and noise impacts on those
neighborhoods as compared to the proposed project. In addition, the No
Project Alternative would require obstruction lights atop the Madera Vista
apartments, which would result in greater aesthetic impacts. Furthermore,
the No Project Alternative would not align the flight paths with prevailing
or Santa Ana wind conditions, which would eliminate the benefit of
5
maximum control over the aircraft, and again, result in greater safety
hazards than would occur under the project as proposed.
2. Alternative Two — Alternative Interim Helistop Site
a. Summary of Alternative
The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed
interim helistop at a different location on the project site. The alternative interim site
would be at ground level in the southwestern portion of the project site,
approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and approximately 275 feet from
the western boundary of the project site. This helistop would include the same
design, lighting, and security features as the interim helistop. However, red
obstruction lights would be required on (or next to) several Southern California
Edison (SCE) power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of their locations
at night. This alternative would include development of the proposed one -story 5,000
square foot storage building.
b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
In regards to meeting the project objectives, the Alternative Interim Helistop
Site Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project
objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within
the City of Temecula. This alternative would also align the flight paths with the
prevailing and Santa Ana winds, which would make take -off and landings safer.
However, it would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development
with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. Specifically, this
alternative would route the flights paths in the vicinity of nearby power lines,
increasing safety hazards related to visibility of these features as well as flight path
obstructions, requiring a variance from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for
transitional surface penetration. Furthermore, this alternative would result in greater
aesthetics impacts due to the requirement that red obstruction lights be placed on or
adjacent to the power lines as well as visually prominent security fencing that would
be required to surround the at -grade helistop location.
C. Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The proposed project is
the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As described in the Draft SEIR, the No Project
Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and noise impacts than would occur by the
proposed project; and the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in
greater aesthetics and hazards impacts than would occur by the proposed project. As a
result, the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. A summary
comparison of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives and the proposed
project is provided in Table 1.
11
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Impact Category Proposed Project No Project Alternative Site
Alternative
Aesthetics Less than significant Greater Greater
Hazards Less than significant Similar Greater
Noise Significant and Greater Greater /Fewer
Unavoidable
Meets the project Yes Yes, but not to the Yes, but not to the
objectives same extent as the same extent as the
proposed project proposed project
D. The Project as Proposed
1. Summary of Project
The project is described in detail in the SEIR.
2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed
The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts
of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final SEIR and have compared them with
those of the proposed project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives
is infeasible for various economic, social, or other reasons set forth above. The
City Council further finds that the project as proposed is the best combination of
features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the project goals of
providing superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical
services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the
region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and
patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other
regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed
helistop locations would further the project objective of providing buffers that
minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on
surrounding residential uses.
More specifically, the project as proposed would further the project objective of
providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and
visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and would respond to
requirements of the FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and addresses
various impacts to recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site.
7
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed
approval of the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (the "project').
CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance the economic, legal, social,
technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when
determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to
provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable
when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence
in the 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 impacts to noise generated by helicopter activities. In making this
finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable impacts
and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that
each one of the following benefits of the project, independent of the other benefits, would
warrant approval of the project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the
project.
A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed
to either lessen project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible,
and furthermore, that alternatives to the project are infeasible because they
generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the project,
or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the
Statement of Facts and Findings.
B. The proposed project would provide for superior, easily accessible, operationally
efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet
the medical needs of the region. The proposed project would provide hospital
doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical
procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities when
ambulance transport is inappropriate or not advantageous to patients.
C. The proposed project would reduce noise and safety conflicts with adjacent
residential development, as compared to the previously approved helistop site by
rerouting the flight paths to avoid crossing residential uses and locating the flight
paths over less developed areas as well as aligning flight paths with prevailing or
Santa Ana wind conditions, which allows for maximum control over the aircraft.
D. As compared to the previously approved helistop site, the proposed project
would reduce safety conflicts and biological impacts with the existing tall trees
n
within the adjacent riparian area, which FAA would require to be trimmed under
the currently approved flight path and helistop location.
Thus, the proposed Major Modification would provide a benefit to the community by enhancing
access to specialized medical procedures in the region, and would provide a benefit to the local
community by reducing effects and improving safety over the existing approved helistop
locations. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the
project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council
further finds that each of the project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable
adverse environmental effects identified in the Final 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.
D
EXHIBIT C
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Impact
Noise
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Phase Agency Agency Compliance
Mitigation Measure NOI -1: Prior to helicopter operations, the
Temecula Valley Hospital will develop and install signage at both
ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the
hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and
its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise
information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley
Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and
installation of the sign, as well as all related costs.
Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the
aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4.
Tememla Valley Hospital Helistop Protect
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Ongoing
Temecula Valley City of Temecula Field verification
Hospital Building Official and sign -off by
or other City of Temecula
Designee
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
ESA 1130652
March 2015
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for
City of Temecula
March 2015
ESA
A
!`:
TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for
City of Temecula
880 West C stlBet
sWGB 750
San Diego, Cwt 92101
819.719.4200
w .esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Daldand
Orlando
Palm Sptrgs
Smamento
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Wood" Hills
130562
March 2015
r �
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project
Final SEIR
Page
1. Introduction ...................................................................................... ............................1
-1
1.1
Background ........................... ................................................................................
1 -1
1.2
Use of the Final EIR and the CEQA Process ............................ ............................1
-2
1.3
Method of Organization ............................................................ ............................1
-3
1.4
Focus of Comments .................................................................. ............................1
-3
1.5
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................... ............................1
-4
2. Response to Comments ................................... ...............................
Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse ........................ ...............................
Response to Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse ............................
Letter A: Department of Fish and Wildlife ........... ...............................
Response to Letter A: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Letter B: Azim Azhand ........................................ ...............................
Response to Letter B: Azim Azhand ............. ...............................
Letter C: Steve Chen .......................................... ...............................
Response to Letter C: Steve Chen ............... ...............................
Letter D: Simone Rosu ........................................ ...............................
Response to Letter D: Simone Rosu ............ ...............................
Letter E: Simone Rosu ........................................ ...............................
Response to Letter E: Simona Rosu ............. ...............................
Letter F: Robert Jenkins ...................................... ...............................
Response to Letter E: Robert Jenkins .......... ...............................
Tables
Table 1 -1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measure
Table 2 -1: List of Comments Received .................... ...............................
............2 -1
............ 2 -3
............ 2 -5
............ 2 -6
..........2 -11
..........2 -15
..........2 -16
..........2 -17
..........2 -19
.......... 2 -26
..........2 -28
.......... 2 -29
.......... 2 -32
.......... 2 -33
..........2 -35
.............1 -5
.............2 -1
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project I ESA 1 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) was prepared pursuant to the
State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) (California Public
Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). The City of Temecula is the CEQA lead agency
for this SEIR.
The proposed project addressed in this report is a Major Modification to the planned helistop
facilities at Temecula Valley Hospital in response to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development
adjacent to the hospital. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously
approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project
phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later
phase. The previously approved helistop location would be developed with a single -story 5,000 -
square -foot storage building that would be used to store non - hazardous hospital supplies. With
the addition of the proposed storage building, the total square footage of the hospital facility
would increase to 571,160 square feet (from the 566,160- square -foot facility that was approved in
2010). The change in location of the helistop sites, the proposed storage building, and the
potential impacts related to those changes to the project description, is reviewed in this SEIR to
identify potential environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Major Modification.
1.1 Background
On November 12, 2014, the City of Temecula (the lead agency) released the Draft SEIR for a 45-
day review period and comment period, which closed on December 29, 2014. In response, six
comment letters were received. This Final SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements
of CEQA, and incorporates comments from public agencies and the general public, and contains
appropriate responses to those comments.
The Final SEIR is an informational document that must be considered by decision makers before
approving or denying the proposed Major Modification. The Draft SEIR and Response to
Comments constitute the Final SEIR for the proposed project. As specified in Section 15132 of
the CEQA Guidelines, this Final SEIR consists of:
a) The Draft SEIR or a revision of the draft.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project ESA 1 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Mar& 2015
I . Introduction
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft SEIR either verbatim or in
summary.
c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR.
d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the
review and consultation process.
e) Any other information added by the lead agency.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15004 states that before the approval of any project subject to CEQA,I
the lead agency must consider the final environmental document, which in this case, prior to
approval of the proposed Major Modification the City must consider the Final SEIR.
1.2 Use of the Final EIR and the CEQA Process
The Final SEIR allows the public an opportunity to review any revisions to the Draft SEIR, the
response to comments, and other components of the SEIR, prior to approval of the Major
Modification. After completing the Final SEIR and before approving the project, the lead agency
must make the following three certifications, as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA
Guidelines:
• The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
• The Final SEIR was presented to the decision - making body of the lead agency, and that
the decision - making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final SEIR
prior to approving the project; and
• The Final SEIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis.
As required by Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or
carry out a project for which an FIR (including an SEIR) has been certified that identifies one or
more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more
written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. The
possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
FIR.
(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.
The word "approval" is defined by Section 15352 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "the decision by a public
agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by
any person..." In addition, the CEQA Guidelines state that "[wlith private projects, approval occurs upon the
earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan,
or other forth of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project"
Temewla Valley Hospital Hallstatt Pfalect 1-2 ESA / 130652
Final supplemental Enwonmental Impact Repan March 2015
(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.
These certifications and the Findings of Fact are included in a separate Findings document.
1.3 Method of Organization
This Final SEIR for the proposed Major Modification contains information in response to
concerns raised by written comments sent to the City of Temecula. The Final EIR is organized
into the following chapters:
Chapter 1, Introduction, consists of a summary of the background of the proposed
project, information about the certification of the Final SEIR, and a brief discussion of
the intended uses of the Final SEIR. Chapter I also contains the final Summary Table of
Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
• Chapter 2, Response to Comments, contains a matrix of agencies and individuals that
submitted written comments on the Draft SEIR. This matrix identifies the issue areas
addressed by those comments. Chapter 2 also includes a copy of each written comment
letter, and a written response to each comment.
1.4 Focus of Comments
Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the purpose of public review of a draft
environmental document, which include:
(a) Sharing expertise,
(b) Disclosing agency analyses,
(c) Checking for accuracy,
(d) Detecting omissions,
(e) Discovering public concerns, and
(f) Soliciting counter proposals.
Sections 15204(a) and 15204(c) of the CEQA Guidelines further state:
(a) In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of
the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and
ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.
Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or
mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant
environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of
an FIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as
the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and
Terri ala Valley HospiUl Helistop Project 1 -3 ESA 1190652
Final Supplemental EnWmnmental lni acl Report March 2015
the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct
every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded
by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to
significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by
reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.
(c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or
references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion
supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall
not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.
Section 15204(f) of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the rule that a responsible or trustee agency
may submit proposed mitigation measures, limited to the resources subject to the statutory
authority of that agency. These measures must include complete and detailed performance
objectives for the measures or refer the lead agency to the appropriate guidelines or reference
materials.
1.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts and
recommended mitigation measures is included in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and
Mitigation Measures, of the Draft SEIR. Project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and
level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table 1 -1.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-4 ESA 1 130652
Final Supplemental Enviromi lel Impact Report March 2015
1. Introtluction
TABLE 1 -1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact after
Mitigation
Aesthetics
Implementation of the proposed project would not
result in significant aesthetics impacts.
-- -. .. - -- -- ---- -- - - -
Hazards
Implementation of the proposed project would not
result in significant hazards impacts.
- -- -- - - -- - -- - - - - --- - - - --- - -- -- --
Noise-
- - - -
Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in
Mitigation Measure NOI.1: Prior to helicopter operations, the Temecula Significant and unavoidable
Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and
Valley Hospital will develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of
Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels
the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice
riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will
include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The
Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation,
and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs.
Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's
noise level per California PLC Section 21662.4.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helatop Proles 1 -6 ESA 1 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
CHAPTER 2
Response to Comments
As stated in CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15132 and 15362, the Final SEIR must contain
information summarizing the comments received on the Draft SEIR, either verbatim or in
summary; a list of persons commenting; and the response of the lead agency to the comments
received. Seven comment letters were received by the City in response to the Draft SEIR. This
chapter provides copies of each letter received and the responses to these comments. A summary
of the comments is provided below in Table 2 -1.
TABLE 2 -1
LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
Letter
Alpha Agency/Commenter Date of Letter Date Received by City Environmental Issues
SCH
State Clearinghouse
A
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife
B
Azim Azhand, City
Resident
C
Steve Chen, City
Resident
D Simone Rosu, City
Resident
E Simone Rosu, City
Resident
December 29, 2014 January 02, 2015
December 11, 2014 December 11, 2014
December 8, 2014 December 8, 2014
December 16, 2014 December 17, 2014
No date December 22, 2014
December 22, 2014 December 22, 2014
F Katie and Robert December 16, 2014 December 16, 2014
Jenkins, City Residents
• None
• Riparian habitat
• Nesting birds
• Noise from helicopter
operations
• Legality of the environmental
document
• Noise and safety concems
• Public interest and
alternatives
• Legality of the environmental
document
• Noise and safety concerns
• Public interest and
alternatives
• Hospital location
• Noise and safety concems
• Legality of the environmental
document
• Noise and safety concerns
• Public interest and
alternatives
The responses to comments to the letters received are provided below. These responses do not
alter the proposed Major Modification, change the Draft SEIR's significance conclusions, or
result in a conclusion such that significantly more severe environmental impacts would result.
Instead, the information presented in the responses to comments "merely clarifies or amplifies or
Temecula Valley HOSVWI HeInUnp Project 2 -1 ESA / 130652
Final Supplemental Einmmnmental Impact Report ld., X2015
to Comments
makes insignificant modifications" in the Draft SEIR, as is permitted by CEQA Guidelines
Section I5088.5(b).
Regarding recirculation of the Draft SEIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, requires the lead
agency to recirculate an EIR only when significant new information is added to the EIR after public
notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review. New information added to an
EIR is not significant unless the EIR has changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse, environmental effect of the project or a feasible
way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponent's have declined to implement
(CEQA Guide lines, Section 15088.5). In summary, significant new information consists of:
(1) disclosure of a new significant impact; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of
an environmental impact; (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure
considerably different from the others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen environmental
impacts of the project but the project proponent declines to adopt it; and/or (4) the Draft EIR was so
fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and
comment were precluded (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). Recirculation is not required where,
as stated above, the new information provided in response to the comments received to the SEIR
merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate SEIR (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15088.5).
Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Prolea 2-2 ESN 1 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
Comment Letter SCH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA f }4,
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Edmund G. Brown Jr. Ken Alex
Gmmcmor Director
December 29, 2014
f_
Stuart Fisk JAN 0 110(4 `
City of'l emccula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Temecula Valley Hospital Hehstop Major Modification (PA13 -0141)
SCH #: 2013121007
Dear Stuart Fisk:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Supplemental EIR to selected state agencies for
review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state
agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on December 26, 2014, and the
comments from the responding agency (ics) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,
please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State
Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which arc within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those conutlenls shall be supported by
specific documentation"
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you nc,
more information or clarification of the enclosed connnents, we recommend that you contact the
cormncnting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the Slate Clearinghouse review requirements for
draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the
State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review
process.
Sincerely,
Scott organ
Director, Stale Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNM 96912 -3044
TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.olinca.gov
SCH -1
Comment Letter SCH
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2013121007
Project Title Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141)
Lead Agency Temecula, City of
Type SIR Supplemental EIR
Description The proposed project would relocate the previously approved hospital helislop to two new locations, an
interim ground level location that would be removed when the permanent location is constructed on the
roof of the future hospital tower, during a later phase of hospital development. The previously
approved helislop location would be developed with a one -story 5,000 sf storage building that would
provide storage space for non - hazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies, stock for the
hospital, and linens. With the addition of the proposed 5,000 at storage building, the total sf of hospital
facility would increase to 571,160 sf (from the 566,160 sf facility thatwas approved in 2010).
Lead Agency Contact
Name Stuart Fisk
Agency City of Temecula
Phone 951 5065159 Fax
email
Address 41000 Main Street
City Temecula State CA Zip 92590
Project Location
County Riverside
City Temecula
Region
Lat / Long 33° 28'57.35" N / 117° 6'20.76" W
Cross Streets Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base SBB &M
Proximity to:
Highways
Airports No
Railways No
Waterways
Schools
Land Use Hospital facility; Zoned: Planned Development Overlay - 9 (PDO -9);
GPD: Professional Office (PO)
Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Noise; Other Issues
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Department of Parks and Recreation;
Agencies Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Caltrans, District 8; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Region 9; Native American Heritage Commission; Statewide Health Planning
Date Received 11/12/2014 Start or Review 11/12/2014 End of Review 12/26/2014
2. Response to Comments
Response to Letter SCH:
State Clearinghouse
This is a standard letter that comes from the State Clearinghouse in response to environmental
documents that have been submitted to the agency for distribution.
SCH -1 This letter lists the state agencies that reviewed the environmental document and
acknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
No further response is necessary.
Temecula valley Hospital Hefistop project 2 -5 ESA 1 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
Comment Letter A
SSate of California - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND O. BROWN, Jr. Govenuir
13 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Dimctur
Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C -220
Ontario, CA 91764
(909) 484 -0459
www.wildlite.ca.00v
December 11, 2014
Mr. Stuart Fisk
City of Temecula, Senior Planner
41000 Main Street
Temecula. CA 92590
Subject: Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141) Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2013121007
Dear Mr. Fisk:
The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the Notice of Completion (NOC) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report ( DSEIR) for the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification
(PA13 -0141) Project (Project) [State Clearinghouse No. 2013121007]. The Department
is responding to the DSEIR as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources
(California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California
Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible
Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as
the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game
Code Sections 1600 at seq.) and /or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and /or Candidate species
(California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1).
Protect Description
The Project is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, County of
Riverside, California. The City of Temecula is proposing to relocate the previously
approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary
project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower
constructed during a later phase. The interim helistop location would be at ground level
on the west side of the hospital tower, approximately 300 feet northeast of Rancho
Pueblo Road and 450 feet north of Temecula Parkway. With buildout of the hospital
project, the helistop would be relocated to the roof of a future second hospital tower,
which would be approximately 350 feet north of Temecula Parkway, east of the main
hospital entrance. Once the permanent helistop is operational, the interim helistop
would be removed-
Conserving Cafifornia's WWildCfe Since 1870
A-1
Comment Letter A
Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141) Project
SCH No. 2013121007
Page 2 of 5
Biological Resources and Impacts
The CEQA document should contain sufficient, specific, and current biological
information on the existing habitat and species at the Project site; measures to minimize
and avoid sensitive biological resources; and mitigation measures to offset the loss of
native flora and fauna and State waters. The CEQA document should not defer impact
analysis and mitigation measures to future regulatory discretionary actions, such as a
Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.
If state or federal endangered or threatened species have the potential to occur on the
Project, site species specific surveys should be conducted using methods approved by
the Department or assume the presence of the species throughout the project site. The
CEQA document should include recent survey data (CEQA Guidelines Section
15125(a)). The CEQA document should also address species of special concern and
federal critical habitat. To assist with review, an accompanying map showing the areas
of impact should be included in the subsequent CEQA document. Additional maps
detailing the location of endangered, threatened, or species of special concern should
also be included in the subsequent CEQA document.
Ulm
Following review of the DSEIR, the Department's primary concerns relate to the
proposed impacts to riparian habitat (and associated species), within the drainage
located immediately to the east of the project site. The Department requests that the
following questions, comments, and concerns be addressed in the DSEIR prior to
finalization of the SEIR:
Figure 24 of the DSEIR depicts the flight path associated with the permanent helistop
location atop the second tower addition. The flight path crosses the riparian area to the
east of the project site, and Figure 2 -4 states that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) A -2
regulations will require tree removal and /or topping. In addition, Figure 3.3 -8 illustrates
that the riparian area will be exposed to cumulative noise exposure levels (CNEL) of
between 55 and 60 decibels. The Department also understands that once fully
operational, the helistop will receive considerably more helicopter traffic than the site is
currently experiencing. Based on this information the Department is concerned with the
finding of No Impact specified in 4(a) and (b) of the Initial Study (IS), and with the
omission of avoidance, minimization, and potential mitigation measures in the DSEIR to
offset impacts to riparian habitat and associated species.
To address these deficiencies, the Department requests that the Lead Agency complete
and address the following prior to adoption of the Final SEIR:
1. The Department was unable to determine if recent biological surveys, or a habitat
assessment, have been completed for the riparian area east of the project site. The A -3
Department recommends that a habitat assessment and biological survey be
conducted to determine the species that have the potential to occur within this area.
Based on these findings specific avoidance and minimization measures may need to
Comment Letter A
Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141) Project
SCH No. 2013121007
Page 3 of 5
be incorporated into the Final SEIR prior to adoption. The Department is particularly
concerned with impacts to nesting birds, both as a result of the potential loss of
nesting habitat and increased noise (which may lead to nest abandonment, or
discourage birds from continuing to nest in this area entirely). Specific avoidance and
minimization measures may include, but not be limited to: project phasing and timing,
monitoring of project - related noise (where applicable), sound walls, and buffers, where
appropriate.
Please note that it is the Lead Agency's responsibility to comply with all applicable
laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Migratory non -game native bird species
are protected by international treaty under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(META) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, sections 3503,
3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) afford the following protective
measures: Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly
destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any
regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 states that it is unlawful to take,
possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of-
prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as
otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto; and Section
3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except
as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under
provisions of the MBTA.
Environmental documents reviewed by the Department frequently specify a "breeding
bird season." Please note that some bird species may not adhere to specified dates,
and as such the Department encourages the Lead Agency to require the completion of
nesting bird surveys regardless of time of year to ensure compliance with all
applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. The Department also
recommends that pre- construction surveys (if included in the Final SEIR as an
avoidance and minimization measure) be required no more than three (3) days prior to
vegetation clearing, as instances of nesting may be missed if surveys are conducted
sooner.
2. Based on the information provided in the DSEIR, the Department is unclear how the
removal and /or trimming of vegetation within the riparian area will be completed. The
Department recommends that the Lead Agency disclose how removal and /or trimming
will be conducted in the Final SEIR. The Department assumes that continued
vegetation maintenance will be required in this area, and this information should also
be disclosed in the Final SEIR. Because of the lack of specific information in the
DSEIR regarding vegetation removal and /or trimming, the Department recommends
that the City of Temecula contact the Department to determine if the project will
require notification through the Department's Lake and Streambed Alteration Program.
Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code states that for any activity that will divert or
obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include
A -3
l
Comment Letter A
Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141) Project
SCH No. 2013121007
Page 4 of 5
associated riparian resources) of a river or stream or use material from a streambed,
the project applicant (or "entity ") must provide written notification to the Department.
Based on this notification and other information, the Department then determines
whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. The
Department's issuance of an LSA Agreement is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub.
Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, if necessary,
the environmental document should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake,
stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and
monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with the Department is
recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or
reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To obtain a Lake or Streambed
Alteration notification package, please go to
http://www.dfq.ca.gov/habcon/1600/forms.htmi.
The following information will be required for the processing of a Notification of Lake or A -4
Streambed Alteration, if it is determined that notification is required for this project, and
the Department recommends incorporating this information into the CEQA document
to avoid subsequent documentation and project delays. Please note that failure to
include this analysis in the project's environmental document could preclude the
Department from relying on the Lead Agency's analysis to issue a LSA Agreement
without the Department first conducting its own, separate Lead Agency subsequent or
supplemental analysis for the project:
1) Delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that will be
temporarily and /or permanently impacted by the proposed project (Include an
estimate of impact to each habitat type);
2) Discussion of avoidance and minimization measures to reduce project
impacts; and,
3) Discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the project
impacts to a level of insignificance. Please refer to section 15370 of the CEQA
Guidelines for the definition of mitigation.
3. The proposed Project occurs within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area and is subject to the provisions and
policies of the MSHCP. In order to be considered a covered activity, Permittees must
demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the MSHCP and its
associated Implementing Agreement. The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency and
is signatory to the Implementing Agreement of the MSHCP. Compliance with
approved habitat plans, such as the MSHCP, is discussed in CEQA. Specifically, A -5
Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the CEQA document discuss
any inconsistencies between a proposed Project and applicable general plans and
regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community
conservation plans. An assessment of the impacts to the MSHCP as a result of this
Project is necessary to address CEQA requirements. To obtain additional
information regarding the MSHCP please go to: http: / /rctlma.org /ei)d/WR- MSHCP.
Comment Letter A
Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141) Project
SCH No. 2013121007
Page 5 of 5
MSHCP policies and procedures that will apply to this project include: Protection of
Species Associated with Riparian /Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section
6.12), and Additional Survey Needs and procedures for burrowing owl (MSHCP
section 6.3.2). Given that impacts to riparian resources are anticipated, the
Department requests that the Final SEIR discuss how the project will be consistent A -5
with the MSHCP, in particular with MSHCP section 6.1.2. A copy of any documents
discussing the project's consistency with the MSHCP (e.g., Determination of
Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation) should be included with the CEQA
document.
The Department requests that the City of Temecula address the Department's
comments and concerns prior to finalization of SEIR. If you should have any
questions pertaining to these comments, or require further coordination, please
contact Joanna Gibson at (909) 987 -7449 or at Joanna. gibsonawild life. ca. gov.
Sincerely,
l i�� onal Mana ger
cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento
Response to Letter A:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
This letter comes from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and expresses
concern related to potential impacts to existing riparian and bird nesting.
A -1 This portion of the CDFW letter provides an overview of the project description and
describes CEQA requirements for biological resources. This overview of the project
description is consistent with the information provided in the EIR. No response is
necessary.
A -2 This comment describes CDFW concerns about the potential impacts to riparian habitat
and associated species that could occur in the drainage located to the east of the site. The
comment incorrectly indicates that the project would require tree removal and /or topping.
The proposed Major Modification would not require or result in the need for any changes
to the trees in the riparian area due to the reasons outlined below. The black text on
Figure 2 -4 shows what would occur, if the proposed Major Modification were not
approved. The flight path for the approved helistop would require trees in the riparian
area to be limited in height and for obstruction lights to be installed on top of the
Summerhouse apartment buildings. The proposed Major Modification would not utilize
the flight path shown in black on Figure 2 -4. The proposed interim flight path is shown in
green on Figure 2 -4 and would not cross the riparian area. Because the interim flight path
that would be utilized by the proposed project (shown in green on Figure 2 -4) would not
cross over the riparian area, the interim flight path would not result in the need to
physically alter the riparian area, including tree removal and/or trimming.
The permanent helistop would be located on top of the five -story hospital tower building
with a building height of 83 feet; its associated flight paths are shown in brown text on
Figure 2 -4. As described in the Section 3.2, Hazards of the Draft SEIR, each of the
proposed flight paths for the Major Modification have been designed to avoid the existing
trees, five -story hospital building, light poles, and utility lines. Specifically, the proposed
flight paths for the Major Modification are designed to meet Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) Part 77 obstruction clearance standards, which provide clearance
from the edge of the FATO for a distance of 4,000 feet, at a ratio of 1 foot vertical for
every 8 feet horizontal distance traveled. The riparian area is located approximately 300
feet away from the permanent helistop location. At the ratio required by FAR Part 77, the
clearance required at this distance would be a height of 120.5 feet. Therefore, from an
elevation of 83 feet above grade at the top of the five -story hospital building, and at an
incline required by the FAR clearance standards, the existing trees located in the riparian
area to the east of the project site, which are approximately 50 feet in height would not be
effected by operation of either the proposed interim or permanent helistops and would not
require trimming or removal.
In addition, the comment provides concerns related to the riparian area's exposure to
noise levels of between 55 and 60 decibels (dB). As shown in Table 3.3 -1 in Section 3.3,
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-11 ESA 1130652
Final Supplemental Emmonmental Impact Report March 2015
Comments
Noire, the existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is between 58.9 CNEL,
db and 78.7 CNEL, dB. Existing noise sources in the project vicinity include the roadway
noise related to Temecula Parkway and the operating hospital that includes ambulance
siren noise. The noise measurement site closest to the riparian area (Site 3) has an
existing ambient noise volume of 63.5 CNEL, dB. As shown in Figure 3.3 -8 of
Section 3.3, Noise, the 60 dB CNEL contour resulting from the helicopter flights are
completely contained on the hospital campus. In addition, as shown in Tables 3.3 -10 and
3.3 -11 in Section 3.3, Noise, the ambient noise at Site 3 would increase by 0.1 CNEL, dB
with operation of the interim helistop and zero increase with operation of the permanent
helistop. Because Site 3 is adjacent to the riparian area, this noise change from the
proposed project is representative of what would occur at the riparian area. Thus, CNEL
noise levels from operation of the helistop would not result in impacts to the riparian
area.
A -3 The comment states that CDFW was unable to determine if recent biological surveys
have been conducted and states that the Department is particularly concerned about
nesting birds and provides information about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and nesting
birds.
As described in the Executive Summury Section S.2 and Chapter 1, Introduction of the
SEIR, the Temecula Valley Hospital is an approved and operating project. The proposed
Major Modification to the hospital would relocate the previously approved helistop and
add a 5,000- square -foot single story storage building. The proposed Major Modification
would relocated the approved helistop to a new interim location that is farther away from
the riparian area than the approved interim helistop location (shown on Figure 2 -4).
As described in Section 1.4 of the SEIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that
when an EIR has been prepared for a project (such as was completed for the hospital
project), a "supplement" to an FIR may be prepared if changes in the approved project
would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts and only minor additions or
changes would be necessary to make the previous FIR adequately apply to the project in
the changed situation. In addition, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the
SEIR only needs to contain the information necessary to respond to the project changes,
changed circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional
environmental review.
In compliance with these CEQA Guidelines sections, the City determined that potential
impacts related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise could occur from the proposed Major
Modification in such a manner that potentially new or substantially more severe impacts
not identified in the previous CEQA documentation for the hospital could occur and
would require evaluation in this SEIR. The City also determined that the proposed Major
Modification would not result in impacts related to biological resources that would be
new or substantially more severe than described in previous CEQA documents for the
hospital. As a result, biological resource surveys were not undertaken as part of preparing
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2 -12 ESA 1130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
this SEIR. Furthermore, the City understands the regulations related to the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act as described in this comment. The proposed Major Modification does not
include or require any vegetation clearing or tree trimming.
A -4 This comment states that CDFW is unclear about the removal or trimming of vegetation
within the riparian area, and further describes requirements for a Streambed Alteration
Agreement for activities that would divert or obstruct natural flow, or change the bed,
channel, or bank of riparian areas.
The proposed Major Modification would not require or result in the need for any
activities in the riparian area, or the need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement. No
changes to the trees or vegetation (including trimming or removal) in the riparian area are
proposed or would occur as a result of the proposed Major Modification.
As described in response A -2 above, the black text on Figure 2 -4 shows what would
occur, if the proposed Major Modification were not approved. The proposed Major
Modification would utilize the interim flight path shown in green on Figure 2 -4 that
would not cross the riparian area; and the permanent helistop would be located on top of
the five -story hospital tower building at an elevation of 1,135 feet, which would not
interfere with trees. Therefore, no activities would occur in the riparian area by the
proposed Major Modification and a Streambed Alteration Agreement would not be
required.
A -5 This comment provides an overview of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and states that an assessment of impacts to the
MSHCP as a result of the project is necessary. This comment correctly acknowledges the
location of the project within the Southwest Areas Plan of the MSHCP and includes a
summary of policies and procedures from the MSHCP related to riparian areas and
burrowing owl.
As described in response A -3 above, the City determined that the proposed Major
Modification would not result in impacts related to biological resources and/or the
MSHCP that would be new or substantially more severe than described in previous
CEQA documents for the hospital. The project site is not in an MSHCP criteria cell and
no native vegetation /habitat occurs onsite. The project area is surrounded by urban land
uses and contains maintained non - native grassland and landscaped/hardscape areas. Thus,
an evaluation of the proposed Major Modification and the applicable MSHCP policies are
not provided in the SEIR. As described above, the proposed Major Modification would
not make any changes to the riparian area (including the trimming of trees and/or removal
of vegetation) and (as described in response A -2) CNEL ambient noise in the riparian
area would not be impacted. Thus, impacts to riparian resources are not anticipated. In
addition, burrowing owl surveys are not required because the proposed activities would
not occur within or adjacent to potential burrowing owl habitat. No burrowing owl habitat
has been identified on the operating hospital site. The proposed Major Modification is
consistent with MSHCP policies because it would not result in impacts to areas identified
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2 -13 ESA / 130652
Final Supplemental Emlronmental Impact RepaM1 March 2015
to Comments
for conservation, or riparian/riverine habitat. As a result, no further information or
evaluation is required in this SEIR.
Temeala Valley Hospital Helistop Prpjed 2-14 ESN I I3 13U
Final Supplemental Ewronmental Impad Report Mar& 2015
Comment Letter B
From: Azim Azhand [ mailto :azimazhandmd(algmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:02 PM
To: Stuart Fisk
Subject: Against having Helicopter landing pad at Temecula Valley Hospital
I am a doctor and living in Santiago Estates, despite the pollution and noise issue with
Helicopters disrupting the lives of the community, one have to ask the need and the necessity of
having the Helicopter landing pad. TVH is not a trauma center and neither has newborn or OB B-1
services, so that there is no urgency to use Helicopters for transportation of patients, for all
other medical cares the hospital should be able to provide initial care, stabilized patients could be
transferred in and out of the hospital safely and cost effectively by BLS or ACLS Ambulance
services. Azim U. Azhand, MD
2. Response to Comments
Response to Letter B:
Azim Azhand, City Resident
This letter comes from a city resident who expresses concern about the noise and pollution as
well as the necessity of the proposed helistop.
B -1 This comment addresses concern regarding the potential noise pollution associated with
the proposed project as well as the necessity of the proposed helistop at a hospital that
provides neither trauma services nor newbom or obstetrician services. As discussed in
Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the intent of the proposed helistop is to
be able to efficiently transport seriously ill patients to and/or from the hospital in order to
take advantage of services at other regional medical facilities in the event that a patient is
in urgent need of services that Temecula Valley Hospital (TVH) may not provide, or in
the event that a patient needs rapid transport to TVH from elsewhere in the region. A
helicopter would be used only in situations of greater urgency, and, as noted in the
comment, the hospital would make use of an ambulance to transport patients whenever it
is feasible to do so.
The helicopter would be, and has been, used for rapid transportation to specialty services
for critical care patients, such as stroke, pediatric, trauma, and bum care services. The
most common patients that have been transferred by helicopter out of Temecula Hospital
have been critically ill children that have been Flown to Rady Children's Hospital in San
Diego or another children's hospital. Other critical patients that have been transferred by
helicopter have needed specialized lifesaving procedures, such as brain and heart vessel
aneurysm repair. In these instances, the helicopter has arrived quickly with specialized
staff (such as a pediatric specialty nurse and pediatric physician for children). These
critical care patients do not have time to spare.
In addition, to transferring out patients, the Temecula Valley Hospital is a STEMI (Heart
Attack) Receiving Center and Stroke Ready Hospital that receives critical patients. Due
to distance, remote location, traffic conditions, that it may be necessary to transfer
patients to the hospital via helicopter to maximize lifesaving care.
As discussed in Section 3.3, Noise, of the Draft SEIR, the City is unable to regulate the
helicopter noise because limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to
California Public Utility Code Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for
medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and
arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As a result,
the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helietop Project 2 -16 ESA 1130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
dEC 1 7 2014
!1Y i
To:
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
(via USPS certified mail #7003 0500 0003 9665 3622)
Comment Letter C
From:
Steve Chen
44501 Verde Dr
Temecula, CA 92592
Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014
Date: 12/16/2014
Dear Sir,
I oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the following reasons:
1. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in
approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA
compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project.
• The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop
project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the
existence of this project before November 2013.
• A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that
includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006
Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into
compliance with CEQA.
is
• In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification
for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008.
• But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital
project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all. There was no
environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in
this 2008 SEIR.
• The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing
environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address
noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order
circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit.
2. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding
excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" EIR are preposterous and irrelevant.' is C -2
simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to.
Comment Letter C
3. Despite the current (2014) SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the
facts remain:
• Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously
which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter
"noise" can not be turned off at will during operation.
• Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten
of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes
occurred during takeoff and landing.
• The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods
and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low
altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose
immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists.
• Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional
ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk
factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival.
Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the
ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely
rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula
(along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is not one of them.
While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if
approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to
Temecula communities.
4. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that
outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities.
5. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve
a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment."
The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available, the ground
transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula!
Sincerely,
Steve Chen
C -3
I C -4
C -5
Response to Letter C:
Steve Chen, City Resident
This letter questions the legality of the Draft SEIR and expresses concern regarding the
environmental effects of the helistop.
C -1 This comment states that the City is violating CEQA by conducting a SEIR. Specifically,
the comment states that residents were not made aware of, nor did the City conduct, the
appropriate environmental analyses per CEQA for the previously approved helistop
location. Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft SEIR summarizes the history of the
planning applications and CEQA documentation for the hospital project, including the
legal challenges to the 2006 EIR. The helistop was included in the hospital project that
was evaluated in the original EIR in 2006. The 2008 Supplemental EIR further evaluated
issues that the Riverside County Superior Court found to be inadequately addressed in the
original 2006 EIR, including:
• Construction noise impacts;
• Siren noise impacts;
• Mitigation measures for traffic impacts; and
• 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.
As stated in the project history relayed in Chapter 1 of the SEIR, other environmental
impacts addressed in the original 2006 EIR (including effects related to the helistop),
which was certified by the City, were considered to be adequate by the court and
therefore, were not revisited in the 2008 SEIR, which was also certified by the City. The
2006 EIR determined that with operation of the helistop, nearby residents could
experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that could be considered annoying
(2006 Draft EIR page 4 -59) and concludes that the impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
A detailed list of all the Planning Commission and City Council reviews and approvals of
the TVH project is provided below, which include reviews and approvals for the helistop
facility:
• On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS) filed
Planning Application No. PA04 -0462, General Plan Amendment; on October 12,
2005 filed PA05 -0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9);
on June 30, 2004 filed PA04 -0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan;
and on November 4, 2004 filed 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
Temecula Valley Hospital Heiistop Protect 2-19 ESA 1 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2016
to Comments
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959- 080 -001 through 959- 080 -004 and 959- 080 -007
through 959 - 080 -010.
• On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the hospital project at a
noticed public hearing. Based on testimony presented by the general public, the
Planning Commission determined that an FIR would be required for the hospital
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. A
Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and
was circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005.
• On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission
considered the hospital project at noticed public hearings. After consideration of the
project at the noticed public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 06 -01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR and approve a
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the hospital project, adopted Resolution No. 06-
02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA04- 0462), adopted
Resolution No. 06 -03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA05- 0302),
adopted Resolution No. 06 -04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit
and Development Plan (PA04- 0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06 -06
recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map (PA04- 0571).
On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Final EIR
and on the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-
0463). Following due consideration of the hospital project, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06 -05, certifying the Final EIR for the project, adopted Resolution
No. 06 -06, amending the General Plan to remove the project site from the Z "Future
Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two -story height restriction
(PA04- 0462), adopted Resolution No. 06 -07, approving the Conditional Use Permit
and Development Plan (PA04- 0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06 -08, approving
Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 (PA04- 0571).
• 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 hospital project proposed by UHS.
• 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 EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City of
Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the project into compliance with
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 FIR; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was
Tememla Valley Hospital Hellstop Project 2-20 ESA 1 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
2. Response to Comments
significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation
measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. The Riverside County Superior
Court also held that the Final EIR 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.
• On July 3, 2007, UHS submitted Planning Application PA07 -0198, a General Plan
Amendment, PA07 -0199, a Zone Change, PA07 -0200, a Development Plan, PA07-
0201, a Tentative Parcel Map, and PA07 -0202, a Conditional Use Permit, for a 320 -
bed hospital, 80,000 square foot medical office building, 60,000 square foot medical
office building, 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness
center for the 35.3 acre project generally located on the north side of Temecula
Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road.
• On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues
to be addressed in the Supplemental EIR for the project. In response to the Riverside
County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Supplemental EIR was prepared in
accordance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and circulated for public
review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. This Draft Supplemental
EIR focused only on the issues the Riverside County Superior Court found to be
inadequately addressed in the 2006 EIR. As noted above, impacts associated with the
original helistop location were determined by the court to be adequately analyzed in
the FIR that was certified in January 2006, and did not require reanalysis or
additional analysis in the 2008 Supplemental EIR.
On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos.
PA07 -0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change), PA07 -0202
(Conditional Use Permits), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201 (Tentative
Parcel Map), and PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permit) at a noticed public hearing.
Following consideration of the project at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -01 recommending that the City Council
certify the new Final FIR for the project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring
Program, adopted Resolution No. 08 -02 recommending approval of the General Plan
Amendment (PA07- 0198), adopted Resolution No. 08 -03 recommending approval of
the Zone Change (PA07- 0199), adopted Resolution No. 08 -04 recommending
approval of the Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 0202), adopted Resolution No. 08 -05
recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07- 0200).
• 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
project.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Project 2 -21 ESA 1 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
Comments
On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-
0200) at a noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 08 -10, certifying the
SEIR for the project, adopted Resolution No. 08 -11 approving the Zone Change
(PA07- 0198), adopted Resolution 08 -12 approving the Conditional Use Permit
(PA07 -0202, adopted Resolution 08 -13 approving the Development Plan (PA07-
0200), and adopted Resolution 08 -14 approving the Tentative Parcel Map (PA07-
0201).
• On December 30, 2009, UHS applied for a first Extension of Time for the
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The City Council approved
Resolution No. 10 -08 for the Extension of Time on January 26, 2010, thereby
extending the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to
January 22, 2011. In Resolution 10 -08 the City Council specified that in construing
the phrase "beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval' as
used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 08 -12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution
No. 08 -13 the Council to consider the following schedule of actions required to begin
substantial construction of the hospital in 2010: (1) the submission by UHS of all
documents required for the City to issue a grading and a building permit for the
hospital on or before April 30, 2010; (2) the award of a construction contract for the
hospital by July 1, 2010; (3) commencement of actual construction of the hospital
foundations by October 1, 2010; and (4) diligent progress on the construction of the
hospital thereafter. The City Council further specified in Resolution 10 -08 that in
approving the extension of the land use entitlements for the hospital the City Council
did not approve the "Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline' described
in the UHS application for the extension and that in order to implement a phasing
program UHS would need to file for a major modification of the entitlements.
• On June 18, 2010, UHS filed Planning Application No. PA 10 -0194, a Major
Modification Application to change the phasing of the project by reducing the
number of beds from 170 to 140 for Phase I of the project, to modify the building
facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard,
and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an
expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building.
• On December 15, 2010, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application
No. PA10 -0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following
consideration of the project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 10 -28 recommending that the City Council approve the Major
Modification (PA10 -0194) and certify the SEIR for the Major Modification.
• On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-
0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of
the project at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No.l 1 -17
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Project 2-22 ESA 1 130652
F'mal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
approving Planning Application No. PA 10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying
a SEIR for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing.
C -2 This comment asserts that given the comments in C -1, a SEIR is not appropriate. As
detailed under response to comment C -1, the City responded to the concerns raised by the
Riverside County Superior Court with the preparation of additional documentation,
which brought the proposed project into compliance with CEQA. This SEIR provides
evaluation of the proposed Major Modification, as described above.
C -3 This comment expresses noise and safety concerns related to helicopter operations and
nearby residential uses. Hazards related to helicopter operations are addressed in
Section 3.2, Hazards, of the Draft SEIR. As described in that section, the flight paths of
the proposed helistop locations are consistent with FAA and Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics design requirements, and the Riverside County airport land use plan. The
helistops would operate under approvals from these agencies, which involve reviewing
helistop locations for their compatibility with surrounding land uses and identifying
potential aeronautical hazards in advance, to prevent and minimize any adverse impacts
and provide safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. Permits issued by the Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics require consistency with California Code of Regulations (CCRs),
Title 21 , Sections 3525 through 3560, which provide rules, regulations, and permit
requirements related to the proposed helistop that incorporate FAA regulations,
including: design standards, lighting standards, visual standards, obstruction standards.
All of the standards and regulations contained with CCR, Title 21, Sections 3525 through
3560 related to the adequacy of helistop design, including marking, lighting, and visual
aids must be met to receive a helistop operating permit from Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics. Thus, review by each of the three governing agencies that have authority
over the proposed helistop have a primary focus of ensuring the safety of the helicopter
operators as well as the people and buildings in the vicinity of the helistop. Thus,
acquisition of the approvals and permits from these agencies would ensure that safety
hazards to both persons in the helicopter and people residing or working in the project
area would not occur. As a result, impacts related to substantial safety risks for people
residing or working in the project area were found to be less than significant.
The comment notes that helicopters produce noise of up to 105 dB. Noise impacts related
to the proposed helistop operations were considered in Section 3.3, Noise of the Draft
SEIR, and it was determined the noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the
interim helistop would result in a maximum noise level of up to 79.7 Lmax, dBA under
prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital); and under
Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise could expose areas to maximum
noise levels of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA at the equestrian trails (see page 3.3 -24 of the
Draft SEIR). While helicopter noise that would occur at the permanent helistop would be
lower than those occurring at the interim location, and while the noise generated by
helicopter operations would not be as high as 105 dB as stated in the comment, this
impact was found to be significant and unavoidable due to impacts related to an increase
Temeeula Valley Hpepilal Helelop Project 2 -23 ESA 1 130652
Final Supplememal Enirrenmemal Impact Report Mamh 2015
to comments
in short-term noise events from helicopter overflight noise. As discussed in Section 3.3,
Noise, of the Draft SEIR, the City is unable to regulate the helicopter noise because
limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a),
which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances
that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict
flights due to noise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital
to reduce helicopter noise.
C -4 This comment states that the City has not proven significant public interest in the helistop
that outweighs the significant and unavoidable impacts that would be result from the
project. As described in the Draft SEIR, the purpose of the proposed project is to provide
for superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within
the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed
project would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the
art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities when
ambulance transport is not advantages to critical patients.
The helicopter would be, and has been, used for rapid transportation to specialty services
for critical care patients, such as stroke, pediatric, trauma, and burn care services. The
most common patients that have been transferred by helicopter out of Temecula Hospital
have been critically ill children that have been flown to Rady Children's Hospital in San
Diego or another children's hospital. Other critical patients that have been transferred by
helicopter have needed specialized lifesaving procedures, such as brain and heart vessel
aneurysm repair. In these instances, the helicopter has arrived quickly with specialized
staff (such as a pediatric specialty nurse and pediatric physician for children). These
critical care patients do not have time to spare.
In addition to transferring out patients, the Temecula Valley Hospital is a STEMI (Heart
Attack) Receiving Center and Stroke Ready Hospital that receives critical patients. Due
to patient distance, remote location, or traffic conditions, it may be necessary to transfer
patients to the hospital via helicopter to maximize lifesaving care.
Transport in ground ambulances that are staffed with 911 paramedics have a more limited
scope of practice compared to the critical care team that would arrive with the medical
helicopter. In addition, specialty ambulances that are available in the region can be
delayed in traffic both to pick up the patient and to transport them to a specialized
facility, which not only takes longer to transport critical patients, but also takes the
specialty ambulance out of service in the community for an extended period of time.
A medical helicopter could land at an off -site location; however, ambulance travel to and
from an off -site would provide a substantial delay to the provision of care to critical
patients. Furthermore, emergency medical landing activities, which are allowed by law in
cases of medical necessity, utilize Fire Department staffing and fire engines to secure off -
site landing areas and provide ground to air radio communications for safety, which
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2 -24 ESA 11 WE52
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
would take fire staff and equipment out of availability for other community needs during
medical helicopter operations.
Compared to the approved interim helistop location, the proposed Major Modification
would reduce noise and safety conflicts with adjacent residential development by
rerouting the flight paths to avoid crossing residential uses and locating the flight paths
over less developed areas as well as aligning flight paths with prevailing or Santa Ana
wind conditions, which allows for maximum control over the aircraft. The proposed
project would reduce safety conflicts and biological impacts with the existing tall trees
within the adjacent riparian area, which FAA would require to be trimmed under the
currently approved flight path and helistop location. In addition, the proposed Major
Modification would avoid the additional lighting that would be required on the nearby
Summerhouse apartment buildings.
In critical medical situations, there is a correlation between the speed of response and a
favorable outcome for the patient. Thus, the proposed Major Modification would provide
a benefit to the community by rapid access to lifesaving specialty services at other
facilities within the southern California region. In addition, the proposed Major
Modification would provide a benefit to the local community by reducing effects and
improving safety over the existing approved helistop locations. Furthermore, the
proposed helistop would not need to utilize Fire Department staffing and equipment,
therefore, making it available for other community needs.
As noted above, the City's Planning Commission and City Council will take the
significant and unavoidable impacts of the project into account when considering whether
to approve the project at hearings that will be noticed and available to the public.
However, the City is limited in regulating medical helicopter flights.
C -5 This comment states that the feasible alternative to the proposed project is ground
transport by ambulance. If the proposed helistop locations considered in the current Draft
SEIR are not approved, then the previously approved helistop locations, which were
analyzed under the No Project Alternative in the Draft SEIR, would be implemented. As
described in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the California's Public
Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a) states that emergency aircraft flights for
medical ptuposes by law enforcement, firefighting, military, or other persons who
provide emergency flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances
adopted by a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, that
restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, that restrict
the departure or arrival of aircraft based upon the aircraft's noise level, or that restrict
the operation of certain types of aircraft (emphasis added to project related code text).
Pursuant to this, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical
purposes.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop Project 2 -25 ESA 1130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
Comment Letter D
From:
Simona Rosa
30451 DE PORTOLA RD
TEMECULA,CA 92592
To:
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Comments /Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014
Date:
Dear Sir,
We, as residents of Temecula in the best interests of our community, oppose Temecula Valley
Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
for the following reasons:
1. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in
approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA
compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project.
• The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop
project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the
existence of this project before November 2013.
• A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that
includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006
Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into
compliance with CEQA.
• In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final FIR certification
for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008.
• But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital
project in January 2008 did not address the helistop issue at all. There was no
environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in
this 2008 SEIR.
• The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing
environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address
noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order
circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit.
D -1
2. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding
excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" FIR are preposterous and irrelevant. There is D-2
simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to.
Comment Letter D
3. Despite the current (2014) SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the
facts remain:
• Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously
which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter
"noise" can not be turned off at will during operation.
• Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten
of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes
occurred during takeoff and landing.
• The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods
and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low
altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose D -3
immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists.
• Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional
ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk
factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival.
Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the
ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely
rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula
(along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is not one of them.
While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if
approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to
Temecula communities.
4. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that D -4
outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities.
5. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve
a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." D -5
The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already exists, the ground transport
ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula!
Sincerely,
Simona Rosu
Comments
Response to Letter D:
Simona Rosu, City Resident
This letter questions the legality of the Draft SEIR and expresses concern regarding the
environmental effects of the proposed helistop.
D -1 This comment states that the City is violating CEQA by conducting a SEIR for the
helistop. Specifically, the comment states that residents were not made aware of, nor did
the City conduct, the appropriate environmental analyses per CEQA for the previously
approved helistop location.
Please see response to comment C -1, above.
D -2 This comment asserts that given the comments in D -1, a SEIR is not appropriate. Please
see response to comment C-2, above.
D -3 This comment expresses noise and safety concerns related to helicopter operations for
nearby residential uses. Please see response to comment C -3, above.
D -4 This comment states that the City has not proven significant public interest in the helistop
that outweighs the significant and unavoidable impacts that would be result. Please see
response to comment C -4, above.
D -5 This comment states that the feasible alternative to a medical helicopter is ground
transport by ambulance. Please see response to comment C -5, above.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-28 ESA / 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
Comment Letter E
From: Lee R rmailto:leerosuCalgmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:35 PM
To: Stuart Fisk
Cc: Maryann Edwards; Jeff Comerchero; Mike Naggar; Chuck Washington; Matt Rahn
Subject: Helistop SEIR- resident feedback
Dear Mr. Fisk,
Please find attached our response to the hospital helipad SEIR. This isn't the first message we
sent to the City of Temecula officials. In all messages we're bringing up the problems the
hospital placement brought to the community. The first issue associated with the hospital ( even
without the helipad or emergency generator) is increase in traffic and noise. The helipad and
emergency generator ( see letter attached) bring additional health and safety issues to the
community. Nobody denies the need for healthcare facilities in this area, but the planning of such
facilities is what is creating all these issues. The location of the hospital lacks common sense
and therefore we suspect some special interests at work here! A more appropriate site location
for a hospital would have been a parcel near the freeway, for instance at the WEST end of
Temecula Pkwy. Advantages of such site: easy access to /from freeway, non - residential
community, plenty of room for a helipad and ultimately, such placement would have shown that
the City actually cares about it's residents!
There is still time to do the right thing: the best solution for the helipad issue would be to place
the helipad at location mentioned above.
1 hope the City will make a decision in the best interest of the community!
Thank you,
Simona Rosu
30451 DE PORTOLA AVE
E -1
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4178
4+ ® (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE
"PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT /OPERATE" PURSUANT TO RULE 212
This notice is to inform you that the South Coast Air Quality Management District
( SCAQMD) has received an application for permit to construct an internal combustion
engine driving an emergency generator at a location in your neighborhood. The
SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and portions of
Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Anyone wishing to install,
operate, or modify equipment that could be a source of air pollution withiii this region
must first obtain a permit from the SCAQMD. Rule 212 requires the applicant for certain
projects, such as this one, to distribute a public notice prepared by the SCAQMD prior to
the issuance of a permit. This notice is being distributed because the project is located
within 1000 feet of Rancho Community Christian School located at 31300 Rancho
Community Way, Temecula, CA 92592.
The SCAQMD has evaluated the permit applications for the following equipment and
determined that the equipment will meet all applicable air quality requirements of our
Rules and Regulations.
COMPANY NAME: TEMECULA CA UNITED SURGERY CENTER, LP
APPLICATION NO.: 567707
LOCATION ADDRESS: 31469 RANCHO PUEBLO RD, TEMECULA, CA
92592
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INSTALL AND OPERATE AN INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINE DRIVNG AN
EMERGENCY GENERATOR _I_ _
Temecula CA United Surgery Center, LP, is a new surgical center. The engine will drive
an electrical generator that supplies power in case of an electrical emergency. The engine
will be tested on a weekly basis for a maximum of one hour. Our calculations show that
based upon a 30-day average a maximum of 0.28 lb/day of nitrogen oxides, 0.07 lbs/day
of carbon monoxide, 0.002 lbs /day of fine particulates, 0.01 lbs/day of organic gases, and
0.0006 lb/day sulfur oxides will be emitted from project described above in any one day.
Generally, the amount will be less as most emergency generator engines do not operate at
maximum capacity. The engine operation will emit small quantities of some toxic
compounds. The SCAQMD has evaluated the long term (chronic) health impacts
associated with the maximum potential emissions. Using worst case conditions, our
evaluation shows that the chronic health risk is well below our rule's toxic thresholds
(below a Hazard Index of 1). According to the state health experts, a hazard index of one
or less means that the surrounding community including the most sensitive individuals
such as very young children and the elderly will not experience any adverse health
impacts due to exposure to these emissions. In addition, the cancer risk from these
emissions is below the SCAQMD risk threshold of one in a million.
The air quality analysis of this project is available for public review at the SCAQMD's
headquarters in Diamond Bar. A copy of the draft permit to operate can be viewed at
hM:// www3. ggmd. gov/ webapp l/oublicnotices2/Search.ospx. Information regarding the
facility owner's compliance history submitted to the SCAQMD pursuant to California
Health & Safety Code Section 42336, or otherwise known to SCAQMD, based on
credible information, is also available from the SCAQMD for public review. Anyone
wishing to comment on the proposed issuance of this permit should submit their
comments in writing within 30 days of the distribution date shown below. If you are
concerned primarily about zoning decisions and the process by which this facility
has been sited at this location, you should contact your local city or county planning
department. Please submit comments related to air quality to Ms. Vicky Lee, Air
Quality Engineer, Engineering and Compliance, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765417&
For additional information, please call Ms. Vicky Lee at (909) 396 -2284. For your
general information, anyone experiencing air quality problems such as dust or odor can
telephone in a complaint to the SCAQMD by calling 1- 800 -CUT -SMOG (1- 800 -288-
7664).
Distribution Date: 12-15-2014
to Comments
Response to Letter E:
Simona Roi City Resident
This letter expresses concern about the general location of the hospital as well health and safety
concerns surrounding the helipad and an emergency generator.
E -1 This comment expresses concern related to the location of the hospital and traffic, noise,
and safety impacts related to the location. Vehicular traffic was not an issue area
discussed in this Draft SEIR. As discussed in the Initial Study of Appendix A, effects of
the proposed helistop operations on air traffic impacts and hazardous design features
were determined to have potentially significant impacts and required analysis in the
SEIR. As such, these topics are discussed in Section 3.2, Hazards, and were determined
to have less than significant impacts due to compliance with FAA, Caltrans, and
Riverside County airport land use plan regulations.
The City also determined that the proposed Major Modification would not result in impacts
related to traffic that would be new or substantially more severe than described in previous
CEQA documents for the hospital. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the SEIR
only needs to contain the information necessary to respond to the project changes, changed
circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional environmental
review. Thus, traffic is not further evaluated in the SEIR.
As discussed elsewhere in these responses to comments, noise will result in significant
and unavoidable impacts related to helicopter operations and the City is unable to
regulate medical flights pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft
flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight
departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to
noise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce
helicopter noise.
Finally, this letter mentions safety concerns related to a proposed emergency generator.
Included with the letter is an attachment containing a notice from the South Coast Air
Quality Management District about a permit application for an emergency generator at
31300 Rancho Community Way. This permit application is for a property near the
hospital, but not within the project site, and is not a component of the proposed Major
Modification. Therefore, no response related to the emergency generator is required.
Temecula valley Hospital Hellstop project 2 -32 ESA 1 130652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
Katie & Robert Jenkins
4:3810 Villa Del Sur Dr
Temecula CA 92592
Aun Stuart Fisk
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Comment Letter F
Re: Comments /Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014
December 16, 2014
Dear Sir,
We oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the following reasons:
I. The hospital is not a trauma center so there is no good reason for a helistop other than to T F -1
run up larger bills for the patients and insurance companies. 1
2. Despite the current (2014) SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects,
the facts remain:
• Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously
which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren,
helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation.
• Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in
ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these
crashes occurred during takeoff and landing.
The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential
neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79).
The effects of low altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust,
landing lights etc) will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to
residents and motorists.
• Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than
traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting
for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of
survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and
where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only
those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such
service, Temecula (along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is
not one of them.
While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if
approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to
Temecula communities.
F -2
Comment Letter F
3. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in
approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA
compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project.
• The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop
project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the
existence of this project before November 2013.
A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that
includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006
Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into
compliance with CEQA.
In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification
for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008.
• But the City's subsequent 2008 SEER that was used to approve the general hospital
project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all. There was no
environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in
this 2008 SEIR.
• The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing
environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address
noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order
circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit.
4. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding
excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" FIR are preposterous and irrelevant. There is
simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to.
5. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that in fact
outweighs its detriment to the environment.
6. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve
a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment."
The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available, the ground
transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula!
Sincerely,
J
Katie and Robert Jenkins
F -3
F -4
Comments
Response to Letter F:
Katie and Robert Jenkins, City Residents
This letter questions the legality of the Draft SEIR and expresses concern regarding the
environmental effects of the helistop.
F -1 This comment notes that the hospital is not a trauma center and does not have good
reason to include a helistop. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the intent of
the helistop is to be able to efficiently transport seriously ill patients to and /or from the
hospital in order to take advantage of services at other regional medical facilities in the
event that a patient is in urgent need of services that the hospital may not provide, or in
the event that a patient needs rapid transport to the hospital from elsewhere in the region.
Please see response to comment C -4, above.
F -2 This comment expresses noise and safety concerns related to helicopter operations for
nearby residential uses. Please see response to comment C -3, above.
F -3 This comment states that the City is violating CEQA by conducting a SEIR for the
helistop. Specifically, the comment states that residents were not made aware of, nor did
the City conduct, the appropriate environmental analyses per CEQA for the previously
approved helistop location. This comment also asserts that, given the above, a SEIR is
not appropriate.
Please see responses to comments C -1 and C -2, above.
F -4 This comment states that the City has not proven significant public interest in the helistop
project that outweighs the significant and unavoidable impacts that would be result and
that the feasible alternative to the helistop is ground transport by ambulance. Please see
responses to comments C -4 and C -5, above.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2 -35 ESA 1 136652
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015
TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL
HELISTOP PROJECT
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for
City of Temecula
November 2014
ESA
J
'--7�1l�w5�ilA�l qty /� A►
w
U
kkzT
TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL
HELISTOP PROJECT
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for
City of Temecula
550 West C Street
Suite 750
San Diego, CA 92101
619.7194200
w .esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Springs
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
130652
November 2014
Fl- ESA
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Page
ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................... ............................S -1
1. Introduction ......................................................................................
............................1 -1
1.1 Summary ........................................................ ......................................................
1 -1
1.2 Project Background ............................................................. .................................
1 -1
1.3 Environmental Review .................................... ......................................................
1 -2
1.4 Purpose of a SEIR .................................................... ............................................
1 -5
1.5 Organization of the SEIR ..........................................................
............................1 -7
1.6 Public Involvement and Review ................................................
............................1 -8
2. Project Description ..........................................................................
............................2 -1
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................ ...............................
2 -1
2.2 Project Objectives .....................................................................
............................2 -2
2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics .................................
............................2 -3
2.4 Proposed Major Modification ......................................................
.......................... 2 -5
2.5 Discretionary Approvals ........................................................... ...........................2
-13
2.6 Cumulative Projects ................................................................. ...........................2
-14
3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................ ..........................3.1
-1
3.2 Hazards .................................................................................. ..........................3.2
-1
3.3 Noise ....................................................................................... ..........................3.3
-1
4. Project Alternatives ........................................................................
............................4 -1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................ ...............................
4 -1
4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed ................................................
............................4 -2
4.3 Project Objectives .....................................................................
............................4 -2
4.4 No Project Alternative ...............................................................
............................4 -3
4.5 Alternative Helistop Site ........................................................... ...........................4
-13
4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative .........................................
......................... 4 -24
5. References, and List of Preparers .................................................. ............................5 -1
6. List of Preparers ................................................... .................................................... ...6 -1
Appendices
A. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study / NOP Comments
B. Noise Impact Analysis
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Protect ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
List of Figures
2 -1
Regional Location Map ................................................................ ............................2
-4
2 -2
Project Vicinity Map ..................................................................... ............................2
-6
2 -3
Proposed Hospital Storage Building and Interim Helistop Location ..............
........... 2 -7
2 -4
Existing and Proposed Interim and Permanent Helistop Locations .........................2
-8
2 -5
Helistop Design Characteristics .................................................. ...........................2
-11
2 -6
Hospital Storage Building Elevations .......................................... ...........................2
-12
2 -7
Cumulative Projects .................................................................... ...........................2
-17
3.3 -1
Effects of Noise on People .......................................................... ..........................3.3
-3
3.3 -2
Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations .......................................... ..........................3.3
-6
3.3 -3
Interim Helistop North -Flow Flight Corridors .............................. .........................3.3
-16
3.3 -4
Interim Helistop South -Flow Flight Corridors ............................. .........................3.3
-17
3.3 -5
Permanent Helistop North -Flow Flight Corridors ....................... .........................3.3
-18
3.3 -6
Permanent Helistop South -Flow Flight Corridors ....................... .........................3.3
-19
3.3 -7
CNEL Contours for Interim Helistop Location ............................ .........................3.3
-22
3.3 -8
CNEL Contours for Permanent Helistop Location ...................... .........................3.3
-23
3.3 -9
Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations .................................... ...........................
3.3 -25
4 -1
Approved Site East -Flow Flight Corridors ........................................... .....................
4 -5
4 -2
Approved Site West -Flow Flight Corridors ................................... ............................4
-6
4 -3
Approved Helistop — CNEL Contours .......................................... ............................4
-8
4 -4
Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations ....................................... ...........................4
-11
4 -5
Alternative Site ............................................................................ ...........................4
-15
4 -6
Alternative Helistop Location - North -Flow Flight Corridors ........ ...........................4
-17
4 -7
Alternative Helistop Location - South -Flow Flight Corridors ........ ...........................4
-18
4 -8
Alternative Helistop CNEL Contours ........................................... ...........................4
-21
List of Tables
S -1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .... ............................S
-7
2 -1
Planned and Approved Projects in the Project Area ................... ...........................2
-15
3.3 -1
Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements .................. ..........................3.3
-5
3.3 -2
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL) ............................... ..........................3.3
-8
3.3 -3
City of Temecula Noise /Land Use Compatibility Matrix ......... ...............................
3.3 -9
3.3 -4
City of Temecula Land Use Maximum Noise Level Standards .. .........................3.3
-12
3.3 -5
Annual- Average Day Operations ................................ ........................................
3.3 -14
3.3 -6
Helicopter Operation Times of Day ( CNEL) ............................... .........................3.3
-14
3.3 -7
EC -135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages — Interim Condition ...........3.3
-15
3.3 -8
EC -135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages — Future Condition ............3.3
-15
3.3 -9
Single -Event Noise Levels for the Interim Helistop .................... .........................3.3
-24
3.3 -10
Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements and INM Location Point
Noise for the Interim Condition .............................................. .........................3.3
-27
3.3 -11
Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements and INM Location Point
Noise for the Permanent Condition ....................................... .........................3.3
-27
4 -1
Existing Ambient Noise Measurements and Helicopter CNEL Noise from the
ApprovedSite ......................................................................... ............................4
-9
4 -2
Single -Event Noise for the No Project Alternative and Comparison to the
Proposed Interim Site ............................................................ ...........................4
-10
4 -3
Existing Ambient Noise Measurements and Helicopter CNEL Noise from the
ApprovedSite ......................................................................... ...........................4
-22
4 -4
Single -Event Noises Levels for the Interim Location ................... ...........................4
-23
4 -5
Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives and the Proposed Project ........................4
-24
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project II
ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November
2014
Acronyms Used in this Report
AC
Advisory Circular
ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act
ALUC
Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
CCRs
California Code of Regulations
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulation
CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level
CUP
Conditional Use Permit
dB
decibel
DHS
California Department of Health Services
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EMS
Emergency Medical Service
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FAR
Federal Aviation Regulation
FATO
final approach and takeoff area
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
Hz
Hertz
INM
Integrated Noise Model
Leq
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level
MND
Mitigated Negative Declaration
MSL
mean sea level
NOP
Notice of Preparation
OSHPD
California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
PDO
Planned Development Overlay
SEIR
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
TLOF
touchdown and liftoff area
UCSD
University of California San Diego
UHS
Universal Health Services Inc.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project III ESA 1 1]0652
Draft Supplemental EmAronmemal Impact Report November 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 Introduction
The Temecula Valley Hospital is being developed in phases; Phase I of the hospital began
operations on October 14, 2013. The hospital is proposing a Major Modification to the planned
helistop facilities in response to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Aeronautics
Division regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital.
The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location
on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase. The previously approved
helistop location would be developed with a new single -story 5,000- square -foot storage building
that would be used to store non - hazardous hospital supplies. With the addition of the proposed
storage building, the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square
feet (from the 566,160- square -foot facility that was approved in 2010). The change in location of
the helistop site, the proposed storage building, and the potential impacts related to those changes
to the project description, is reviewed in this Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
to identify potential environmental impacts that could result from the revised project.
This section provides a summary of the SEIR. Therefore, the reader should review the entire
document to fully understand the proposed Major Modification and its potential environmental
consequences.
S.2 Supplemental EIR
The City of Temecula approved development and operation of the hospital through certification
of an EIR in 2006 and a SEIR in 2008. The City has identified the proposed Major Modification,
which would change the helistop locations on the hospital site and construct a 5,000- square -foot
storage building, as new information of substantial importance that requires evaluation. Because
the Major Modification is limited to the helistop locations, Flight paths, and construction and
operation of a small storage facility, and no other components or operations of the hospital project
would change, a SEIR is the appropriate CEQA document. The SEIR is prepared to provide
additional information to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the hospital with the
relocated helistop locations and proposed storage building. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15163, the SEIR only needs to contain the information necessary to respond to the project
changes, changed circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional
environmental review.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Prolett S -1 ESA 1/3130652
Dmft Supplemental Environmental Impact Repon November 2014
Executive Summary
This Draft SEIR is for governmental agencies and interested organizations and individuals to
review and comment. Publication of this Draft EIR marks the beginning of a 45 -day public
review period. Written comments may be directed to:
Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner
City of Temecula, Planning Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
stuart.fisk @cityoftemecula.org (e -mail)
S.3 Project Location and Surroundings
The Temecula Valley Hospital site is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of
Temecula, Riverside County, California. The site is located on the north side of Temecula
Parkway, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road.
Interstate 15 is approximately two miles to the west.
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; and multi - family residential uses, offices and
commercial uses to the east.
S.4 Proposed Project
The Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations —
an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof
of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase. The interim helistop location would be
at ground level on the west side of the hospital tower, approximately 300 feet northeast of Rancho
Pueblo Road and 450 feet north of Temecula Parkway.
With buildout of the hospital project, the helistop would be relocated to the roof of a future
second hospital tower, which would be approximately 350 feet north of Temecula Parkway, east
of the main hospital entrance. Once the permanent helistop is operational, the interim helistop
would be removed.
The two helistop locations, both interim and permanent, would have two flight paths and are
designed in compliance with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requirements. The timing
of the construction of the future hospital tower and rooftop helistop is currently undetermined.
The previously approved interim helistop location would be developed with a 5,000- square -foot
single story storage building that is 22 feet high, including a cornice that would be provided to
create architectural consistency with the main hospital buildings. In addition, the exterior facades
of the storage building would have the same stucco siding material and beige color palette of the
main hospital building in order to maintain design compatibility throughout the hospital campus.
The storage building would store non - hazardous materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock"
for the hospital, and linens.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Project S -2 ESA I D130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
S.5 Project Objectives
City Objectives
The City's objectives for the proposed project and project area, as listed in the 2006 EIR, are to:
• Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of
Temecula;
• Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices,
cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient
state -of- the -art facility;
• Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services;
• Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify
Temecula's employment base;
• Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in
terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the
location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental
conditions; 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 United Health Services, Inc. (UHS) for the proposed project, as listed in the
2006 EIR, 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
hospital for medical procedures.
Proposed Project Objectives
The proposed relocation of the approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project
objectives listed above. Specifically, the proposed heliport locations would provide for superior,
easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of
Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S -3 ESA I Dl W652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Repo" November 2014
provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures
at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop
locations would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of
helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses.
The proposed storage building is an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily
operations of the hospital. It would also be architecturally consistent with the main hospital
building and would be consistent with project objectives related to providing compatible
development between the project site and surrounding uses.
S.6 Environmental Impacts Evaluated in this SEIR
Through preparation of an Initial Study (included as Appendix A), the City determined that the
proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, and that preparation of a
SEIR is necessary to analyze potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, hazards, and
noise, and that all other CEQA related environmental topic areas would not be impacted, such
that new or substantially more severe impacts could occur beyond what was identified in previous
CEQA documents.
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 S -1 of this Executive
Summary.
The analysis contained in the SEIR uses the words "significant" and `less than significant" in the
discussion of impacts. These terms specifically define 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 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 level below significance. Such
impacts are identified as "unavoidable significant impacts."
Less than Significant Impacts
As presented in more detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures, all impacts related to aesthetics and hazards were found to be less than significant.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires a discussion of any significant impacts that
"cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented." Based upon the analysis in
Chapter 3, the following issue areas would have significant and unavoidable impacts after
implementation of project mitigation measures (see Section 3.3 for details):
• Substantial Periodic Increases in Noise
Temeaola Valley Hospital Hellstop Project S -4 ESA I D130652
Draft supplemental Environmental Impact Repot Novemper 2014
Flight related mitigation measures cannot be placed on this type of medical helicopter activity to
reduce noise impacts because the California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. states
that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local restrictions related to
flight departures and arrivals based upon the aircraft's noise level. The City cannot restrict
helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes, and impacts related to substantial periodic
increases in ambient noise levels from helicopter overflights are significant and unavoidable. As
this is the case, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for the project, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. It should be noted that the previous CEQA
documentation for development and operation of the overall hospital project, also identified
significant and unavoidable noise impacts. Therefore, the noise findings of this SEIR are
consistent with previous CEQA findings.
S.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The City has considered an alternative interim site for the hospital helistop. 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 FIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned
choice' (Section 15126.6[a]). The following alternatives are examined in the SEIR.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted, and
that the existing approved helistop location would be developed. The approved helistop is located
at ground level near the northeast comer of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern
property line. This alternative would include two flight paths — the original flight path that would
travel over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction
to and from the project site, and a second flight path that would travel above single- family
residential areas to the west of the project site. The No Project Alternative would also involve the
addition of obstruction lights on the top of the two -story Madera Vista apartment buildings as
required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The No Project Alternative would not include
development of the proposed storage building.
Alternative Interim Helistop Site
The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed interim helistop at
a different location on the project site. The alternative interim site would be at ground level in the
southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and
approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site. This helistop would include
the same design, lighting, and security features as the interim helistop. However, red obstruction
lights would also be required on (or next to) several Southern California Edison (SCE) power
poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of their locations at night. This alternative would
include development of the storage building, as proposed.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S -5 ESA I D130552
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the SEIR identify the
environmentally superior alternative. Based on the SEIR analysis, the proposed Major
Modification is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The No Project Alternative would
result in greater aesthetics (lighting) and noise impacts than would occur by the proposed interim
helistop location; and the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater
aesthetics and hazards impacts than would occur by the proposed interim helistop location
project. Therefore, the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helielop Prated S-6 ESA / Dt 30652
Draft Supplemental Emmonmental Impact Repon November 2014
Executive
TABLE S -1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact after
Mitigation
Aesthetics
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetics impacts.
Hazards
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant hazards impacts.
Noise
Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Mitigation Measure N0I -1: Prior to helicopter operations, the Temecula Valley Significant and unavoidable
Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Hospital will develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian
Persons to Excessive Noise Levels trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop
location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise
information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be
responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all
related costs.
Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise
level per California PUC Section 21662.4.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Poled S -7 ESA /0130652
Draft supplemental Environmental Impad Report November 2014
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This chapter provides an introduction and describes the background of the proposed Temecula
Valley Hospital Helistop Project, the purpose and legal authority for this Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), and the relationship to the previously certified project
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and previously certified SEIR.
1.1 Summary
The Temecula Valley hospital is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula.
The project proposes a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities in response to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations, safety
factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. The proposed Major
Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations, an interim
location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a
future hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase. The previously approved
helistop location would be developed with a one -story; 5,000- square -foot storage building that
would provide storage space for non - hazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies, "attic
stock" for the hospital (extra materials and supplies kept on -hand for maintenance and repair of
hospital facilities), and linens. With the addition of the proposed 5,000- square -foot storage
building, the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet
(from the 566,160- square -foot facility that was approved in 2010). The change in location of the
helistop site, the construction and operation of the storage facility, and the potential impacts
related to those project changes, is reviewed in this SEIR to determine if any additional
environmental impacts would result from the revised project.
1.2 Project Background
An EIR was prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital project that was certified by the City of
Temecula (City) in January 2006. In February 2006, a legal challenge to the hospital project was
filed on the grounds that the EIR was inadequate, which resulted in a ruling that found that the
FIR did not adequately address several areas, and that the City failed to make valid findings that
the City had adopted all feasible mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. In response, the City prepared an SEIR pursuant to the court's direction that was
certified in 2008.
In 2011, the project applicant, United Health Services, Inc. (UHS) filed a planning application to
change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in Phase 1,
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Protect ESA / 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
1. Introduction
modify the building facades, relocate the truck loading bays and service yards, and to relocate
mechanical equipment. An Addendum to the 2008 Final SEIR was prepared and adopted by the
City in February 2011. Additionally, in July 2012, a conservation easement was approved to
satisfy the off -site mitigation requirements for impacts caused by development of the hospital.
Phase 1 of the hospital began operations on Monday, October 14, 2013. Use of helicopters to
transport emergency patients to and from the hospital is part of the planned hospital services. The
originally approved helistop has not been developed, and the hospital currently uses the approved
helistop site as an EMS landing site, only when necessary. Use of this area as an EMS landing
site is allowable under state regulations related to medical transport (CCR, Title 21, Section
3527(g)). The existing approved landing site is on the northern side of the existing hospital
structure and has a shared approach and departure that consists of a single flight path into and out
of the hospital site. The design does not meet current FAA recommendations for a second flight
path.
Additionally, the Madera Vista apartments are located next to the hospital and under the currently
approved flight path, and were not developed when the helistop was approved. These multi-
family residential units exist on the northwest corner of Dartolo Road and Margarita Road. Due to
their location, the Caltrans Aeronautics Division requires either red obstruction lights on these
residential buildings or realignment of the flight path and addition of a second egress /ingress
flight path. In addition, trees are located within the County -owned drainage adjacent to the
apartments, which would have to be trimmed to meet obstruction height requirements. This
would require approvals or permits from County, state and federal resource agencies. As a result,
the helistop facility has been redesigned and relocated to satisfy both FAA and Caltrans
Aeronautics Division requirements and to reduce conflicts with adjacent development. Because
the hospital project is phased, two helistop locations would be developed, including an interim
and a permanent location. When the permanent helistop is operational, the interim helistop would
be removed.
1.3 Environmental Review
The following provides a history and timeline of the environmental documentation that has been
prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital.
January 2006 Environmental Impact Report
UHS filed planning applications in 2004 and 2005 for a General Plan Amendment (PA04- 0462);
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Plan (PA04- 0463); a Tentative Parcel Map
(PA04- 0571); and a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9) (PA05 -0302) to
develop and operate the regional hospital facility. This included the following:
• A General Plan Amendment to remove the Z2 overlay from the General Plan Land Use
Map, which limited the height of buildings along Temecula Parkway to 2 stories, and the
Professional Office General Plan land use designation from the site.
Temecula valley Hospital Hellstop Project 1-2 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
• A Zone Change from Professional Office and De Portola Road Planned Development
Overlay (PDO -8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9). PDO -9
allows a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the
hospital.
• A CUP to construct a 320 -bed hospital facility and helistop (City zoning regulations
require CUPS for such uses).
• A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160- square -foot hospital, a
helistop, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 -
square -foot cancer center, and an 8,000- square -foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total
building area would involve approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31 -acre site.
• A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel.
The City circulated an Initial Study from March 8, 2005 to April 6, 2005 (State Clearinghouse
#2005031017) with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). At the
Planning Commission hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City received public input and
testimony and determined that a Focused EIR should be prepared for the project to analyze
potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and
transportation impacts. Hence, the City prepared an EIR that was circulated from September 28,
2005 to October 28, 2005. The Final EIR was prepared and City Planning Commission hearings
were held on November 16, 2005 and January 5, 2006, and the City Council adopted a resolution
certifying the EIR on January 24, 2006.
On February 24, 2006, a legal challenge to the project on the ground that the EIR was inadequate
in several respects was filed by two separate groups (California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic) and resulted in a court ruling that rejected many of the challenges, but
found that the EIR did not adequately address the following areas:
• Construction noise impacts;
• Siren noise impacts;
• Mitigation measures for traffic impacts; and
• 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.
January 2008 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court issued a Judgment and Peremptory Writ of
Mandate and directed the City to vacate the project approvals and not to reconsider the project
unless it first circulated, reviewed, and considered a SEIR that addressed noise impacts, traffic
mitigation and the potential impact of MTBE plumes, as previously described. Other
environmental impacts addressed in the prior EIR were considered to be adequate with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and were not revisited in the SEIR.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Project 1 -3 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Repart November 2014
New planning applications for the project were submitted [PA07 -0198 (General Plan
Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201
(Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permit)], and on July 12, 2007, a
scoping session was held in accordance with the Riverside County Superior Court direction. The
SEIR was circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 to December 5, 2007, and on
January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the new planning applications and
recommended that the City Council certify the SEIR. On January 22, 2008, the City Council
rescinded and invalidated its previous approvals of PA04 -0462 (General Plan Amendment),
PA04 -0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan), PA04 -0571 (Tentative Parcel Map),
and PA05 -0302 (Zone Change to PDO -9); approved planning applications for PA07 -0198
(General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07-
0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permit), and adopted Resolution
No. 08 -10 certifying the SEIR for the project. No additional legal challenge was brought forward.
February 2011 Major Modification and Addendum
On June 18, 2010, UHS filed planning application PA10 -0194 for a Major Modification to a
Development Plan to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170
to 140 in Phase 1, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck
loading bays and service yards, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the
service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. An
Addendum was prepared to the Final SEIR to assess the potential environmental effects of the
approval of the Major Modification application. On December 15, 2010, the City Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Addendum and Findings that the Major Modification
does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions,
and does not represent new information of substantial importance that shows that the Major
Modification would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the Final
SEIR. On February 8, 2011, the City Council adopted a resolution to approve the Addendum for
the project.
No legal challenge was brought forward and UHS began construction on the project. Construction
of Phase I began in June 2011, and Phase I began operating on October 14, 2013.
July 2012 Mitigation Easement
In July 2012, a conservation easement of 1.9 -acres was approved as the Wilson Creek mitigation
site through an agreement with UHS and Wilson Creek Farms, LLC. The easement is provided to
satisfy the off -site mitigation requirements for impacts caused by the development of the hospital
as set forth by the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego Region Amendment to Clean Water Act Section 401 and water quality condition 11e -031
from the Section 401 Permit, dated September 26, 2011.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Project 1-4 ESA 1130652
Orafi Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
Proposed Helistop Project
The environmental analysis of the currently proposed helistop was initiated by the City with the
preparation of an Initial Study. Through the preparation of the Initial Study, the City determined
that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, and that a SEIR was
necessary to analyze potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise. A
Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and distributed with the Initial Study for a 30 -day
public review period. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on December 11, 2013 to
introduce the proposed project to the community, and to provide an opportunity for the public to
submit verbal and written comments and recommendations regarding the issues to be addressed
in the SEIR. Copies of the Initial Study, notice of the public seeping meeting, and comments
received in response are included as Appendix A.
Section 15123 (b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an SEIR summary identify areas of
controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public.
Key issues raised during the NOP comment period included noise from helicopter flights and
impacts related to use of the adjacent equestrian trail as helicopters arrive and depart the helistop.
From the Initial Study/NOP process, it was determined that potential impacts related to aesthetics,
hazards, and noise be evaluated in the SEIR; and that all other CEQA related environmental topic
areas would not be impacted, such that new or substantially more severe impacts, and evaluation
in the SEIR would be necessary, as described in Section 1.4 below.
Subsequent to the Initial Study/NOP process, the project applicant requested the addition of the
proposed storage building into the proposed project being evaluated in this SEIR. The City
reviewed the Initial Study prepared for the proposed Major Modification and determined that
potential impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed storage building would be
limited to the topics identified for the proposed helistop locations (i.e., aesthetics, hazards, and
noise) and that all other CEQA - related environmental topic areas would not be affected such that
new or substantially more severe impacts would require evaluation in this SEIR.
1.4 Purpose of a SEIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states when an FIR has been prepared for a project, a
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required only if "substantial changes"
in the project or its circumstances will result in new or substantially more severe impacts that
require additional analysis. A subsequent or supplemental document is required if one or more of
the following events occurs:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions in the previous EIR due to the involvement
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Proled 1 -5 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Repon November 2014
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete, showing any signs of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternatives; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measures or alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a).)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that a lead agency may choose to prepare a "supplement'
to an EIR rather than a "subsequent' EIR if:
• Any of the conditions described previously in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would
require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and
• Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
As affirmed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a SEIR is necessary if there is a change in the
project or circumstances, or new information of substantial importance that was not known
previously that indicates the project will have an effect on the environment that was not covered
in the previous EIR. Since the additional analysis required for the changed project components
and changed circumstances would not require major revisions to the previous EIR, a SEIR is the
appropriate document. A SEIR, as its name implies, supplements the EIR already prepared for a
project to address project changes, changed circumstances, or new information that was not
known, and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
prior document was certified. The purpose of a SEIR is to provide the additional information
necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project as revised. Consequently, the
SEIR need contain only the information necessary to respond to the project changes, changed
circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional environmental review, as
stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. As such, the change in location of the helistop site and
the proposed storage building, and the potential impacts related to these changes, would require
preparation of a SEIR.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1 -6 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
As previously stated, the focus of a SEIR is whether the project changes, changed circumstances,
or new information give rise to a significant new or substantially more severe environmental
impact than was identified and analyzed in the prior EIR. Preparation of a SEIR does not "re-
open" the prior certified FIR; however, the analysis is limited to whether those new changes
result in new or more severe impacts. The SEIR need only consider the new project components
and/or changed circumstances in light of the certified Final EIR(s) already prepared for the
project. A supplement to an EIR may be circulated for public review by itself without
recirculating the previous draft or final FIR. A subsequent FIR, in contrast, is a complete EIR,
largely rewritten, which focuses on the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Proposed Project
The City has identified the proposed change in helistop locations and construction and operation
of the additional 5,000- square -fool storage building on the hospital site to be new information of
substantial importance that needs to be evaluated. Because the proposed change is limited to the
helistop location, Flight paths, and a storage building; and no other components or operations of
the hospital facility would change, a SEIR is the appropriate CEQA document.
The SEIR is prepared to provide additional information to make the previous EIR adequately
apply to the hospital with the relocated helistop locations and proposed storage building. As
described above, CF,QA Guidelines Section 15163 states that the SEIR need contain only the
information necessary to respond to the project changes, changed circumstances, or new
information that triggered the need for additional environmental review. As also described above,
the City prepared an Initial Study and NOP, and identified that the only potential significant
environmental impacts that could be generated from the proposed project are related to aesthetics,
hazards, and noise, which are evaluated in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analvsis.
1.5 Organization of the SEIR
The Draft SEIR will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section
15163. It will include CEQA- required sections and will incorporate the balance of the CEQA
sections contained in the original EIR by reference. The SEIR is organized as follows:
Executive Summary: The executive summary, which precedes this introduction, includes a brief
understanding of the proposed revisions to the approved project and summarizes the revised
project impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the proposed project.
Chapter 1 — Introduction: The introduction includes the purpose of a SEIR, CEQA and City
procedural information and a summary of the CEQA documents that have been certified for the
Temecula Valley Hospital; including: the original EIR, SEIR, and Addendum to the SEIR. In
addition, the introduction includes public involvement information.
Chapter 2 — Project Description: The project description is based on existing information and
includes the project location and setting, site characteristics, project objectives and the
characteristics of the proposed helistop locations and the proposed storage building. This section
will also include the requested permits and approvals for the proposed project. In addition, this
Temecula Valley Hospital HeIrstop Project 1-7 ESA 1 130652
craft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
section will include a discussion of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects
and activities in the surrounding areas that will serve as the basis for the cumulative impact
analysis.
Chapter 3 — Environmental Impact Analysis: For each potentially significant issue identified
in the NOP, this section includes a discussion of the environmental setting, project impacts,
cumulative impacts, project design features, level of significance before mitigation, mitigation
measures, and the level of significance after mitigation. The assessment of impacts are consistent
with CEQA requirements and utilize defined thresholds of significance to determine the impacts
of the proposed helistop locations.
Chapter 4 — Alternatives: Several alternatives have been developed for the project and were
evaluated in the previous EIR and SEIR and are incorporated by reference. The SEIR alternatives
evaluation includes one alternative interim helistop site in addition to the mandatory no project
alternative. For each alternative, a description of the alternative, consideration of the alternative in
relation to the basic objectives of the project (established by the applicant and the City), and a
comparative analysis of the environmental impacts attributable to the alternative versus those
associated with the proposed project for each of the environmental categories are provided.
Chapter 5 — Persons and Organizations Consulted /References: All persons and sources that
contributed to the environmental analysis.
1.6 Public Involvement and Review
The City, as required under CEQA, encourages public participation in the environmental review
process. Opportunities for comments by public agencies and the public include responding to the
NOP, written comments on this Draft SEIR, and presentation of written or verbal comments at
future public hearings.
An NOP for the SEIR was circulated for public comment through the State Clearinghouse for a
30 -day period, from December 2, 2013 through December 31, 2013. A copy of the NOP is
included as Appendix A of this SEIR. This SEIR is being circulated to local, state and federal
agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment
on the document. Publication of this Draft SEIR marks the beginning of a 45 -day public review
period during which written comments may be directed to the City of "Temecula at the address
below. Comments on the proposed project should be directed to:
Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
stuart.f'isk@cityoftemecula.org
Temecula Valley Hospital Hollslop Project 1 -8 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
CHAPTER 2
Project Description
This chapter provides a description of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project
(proposed project), along with a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project
site, required discretionary actions, and objectives of the project.
2.1 Introduction
The proposed project consists of changes to the planned helistop location on the Temecula Valley
Hospital parcel located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula. The project
applicant, UHS, is proposing a Major Modification to change the location of the planned hospital
helistop that would provide new interim and permanent helistop locations on the hospital site.
The hospital, as approved, is being constructed and operated in phases and at buildout would
consist of:
• A two -tower hospital complex containing approximately 320 beds and offering full in-
patient and out - patient services. Both towers would be five stories high;
• Two medical office buildings, one four stories high and the second three stories high;
• A cancer center housed in a one -story building;
• A fitness rehabilitation center for patients and on -site staff in a one -story building;
• A helistop to support helicopter flights to transport seriously ill patients to the hospital or
to another location for further care;
• A truck loading area and facilities plant to provide infrastructure needed to support the
hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and
a bulk oxygen storage area; and
• A jogging path and horse trail to be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail
would also connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the site.
Construction of Phase 1, which includes the new 140 -bed, five -story hospital, is complete and the
hospital began operations on October 14, 2013.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2 -1 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop] to two new
locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases that would be removed when
the permanent location is constructed on the roof of the future hospital tower, during a later phase of
the project. The previously approved helistop location would be developed with a one -story; 5,000 -
square -foot storage building that would provide storage space for non - hazardous hospital materials
such as disaster supplies, "attic stock' for the hospital, and linens. With the addition of the proposed
5,000- square -foot storage building, the total square footage of hospital facility would increase to
571,160 square feet (from the 566,160- square -foot facility that was approved in 2010). The change in
location of the helistops, the construction and operation of the storage building, and the potential
impacts related to those project changes are evaluated within this SEIR.
2.2 Project Objectives
The primary objectives of the hospital project as listed in the 2006 EIR are as follows:
City Objectives
The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area as listed in the 2006 EIR are to:
• Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of
Temecula;
• Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices,
cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient
state -of -the -art facility;
• Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services;
• Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify
Temecula's employment base;
• Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in
terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the
location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental
conditions; 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 UHS for the proposed project as listed in the 2006 EIR are to:
Provide high - quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding
communities;
According to the FAA, in its Heliport Design advisory circular, a helistop is a term sometimes used to describe a
minimally developed heliport for boarding and discharging passengers or cargo. In this case, "passengers" would be
patients and /or medical crew members, and "cargo" would be live organs.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-2 ESA 1 130652
Draft supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
I Project Description
• 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.
Proposed Project Objectives
The proposed relocation of the approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project
objectives listed above. Specifically, the proposed heliport locations would provide for superior,
easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of
Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would
provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures
at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop
locations would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of
helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses.
The proposed 5,000- square -foot storage building would be developed at the previously approved
helistop location, and is an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily operations of
the hospital. The storage building is designed to be architecturally consistent with the main
hospital building and would be consistent with project objectives related to providing compatible
development between the project site and surrounding uses.
2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics
Project Location
The project site (Temecula Valley Hospital) is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of
Temecula. The site is located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, south of De Portola Road
and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, as shown in Figure 2 -1. Regional access to
the project site is provided by Interstate -15 (1 -15) and Temecula Parkway. The site is two miles
east of 1 -15.
Project Site Characteristics
The Temecula Valley Hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently being used for
operation of Phase 1 of the hospital. Existing development on the site includes a five story
hospital tower, onsite driveways, and parking lots. Phase I of the hospital began operations on
October 14, 2013.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Protect 2 -3 ESA 11 Wli5
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
-- Temecula City Boundary
SOURCE: County of Rivenitle, 2010 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 2 -1
Regional Location Map
The existing land uses that surround the hospital include commercial and single- family residences
to the south (across Temecula Parkway); single- family residences to the north (along De Portola
Road); professional office and commercial uses to the west; and multi- family residential, office,
and commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the
project site. A project vicinity map is provided as Figure 2 -2.
2.4 Proposed Major Modification
The project proposes a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities in response to FAA
and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regulations, safety factors, and recent residential
development adjacent to the hospital site. The Major Modification would relocate the previously
approved helistop to two new locations —an interim location for use during preliminary project
phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower when it is constructed
during a later phase. The timing of the construction of the future hospital tower and rooftop
helistop is currently undetermined. A helistop differs from a heliport in that it is not a permanent
base for air ambulance vehicles. There would be no fueling, service, long -term parking, or storage
of helicopters or related equipment at the site.
In addition, a single -story, 5,000- square -foot storage building would be developed in the
northeastern portion of the project site at the previously approved helistop location. Figure 2 -3
shows the location of the proposed helistop and storage building. The storage building would be
an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily operations of the hospital by providing
storage space for non - hazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock" for the
hospital, and linens. With the addition of the proposed 5,000- square -foot storage building, the
total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet (from the
566,160- square -foot facility that was approved in 2010). The storage building is designed to be
architecturally consistent with the existing and planned hospital facilities. All other components
of the hospital project have been previously approved by the City and were evaluated in the 2006
FIR, 2008 SEIR, or 2011 Addendum.
Helistop Relocation
As shown in Figure 2 -4, the approved project includes a 60 -foot by 60 -foot helistop located near
the northeast corner of the hospital (approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line), which
would have a single Flight path into and out of the hospital site. Because this design does not meet
current FAA recommendations for a second flight path, Caltrans Aeronautics has recommended a
second Flight path that would travel above single- family residential areas to the west. Caltrans
Aeronautics requirements would also mandate obstruction lights be installed on the Madera Vista
apartment buildings to the east.
In response, the helistop facility has been proposed to be relocated to satisfy both FAA and
Caltrans Aeronautics Division requirements and to reduce conflicts with adjacent development.
Because the hospital project is phased, two helistops would be developed, including an interim
helistop and a permanent helistop. As shown on Figure 2 -4, the interim helistop location would
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop PrpjecY 2 -5 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
tl '-
y .'-A � Y
y; i rA s
pe POlmla Pd � �j�`
its(* t ROJECT SITE
of
i
0 300 _ - - • _ 4 i . ` e
Feet
SOURCE Ring Maps
a W0
r,
�d' w
I
tia
IF WA
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 2 -2
Project Vicinity Map
—JL
NiEIIIIII lS1f1V
r-
PD C
i
►1
.�
7-�
i
..a i
L----- - - - - -- �— Lu
Cc
�— lawlmwnmowaEElnnEla
i IIONpI
— -- 1 I ml�cco EZ3Ela0arow3w raElMa
I I�1N
1
l
1
I
I•
Ij
II
1'
T
0 M
Tm WVafty HOSMWHOSIWSEIa. 130052
Figure 2 -3
Proposed Hospital Storage Building
and Interim Helistop Location
r.a �Wa PO
A�
Recom'nenaQaFGn o"A�
s g
rwaaecr \ �
/ Coltrons Requires Obstruction Lights
Q °r on Summerhouse Apartment Buildings
tpoihhis Plight Path.
1
( uEST IA
TRAIL / a
0 L[
FAA Required Tree Removal and /or
;; • ` Topping Requires Fish & Game
Coordination
i . ni,ii f t Helistop
Locution Atop
Second Tower Addii on
- -__
9OU11LE. MMgnw.
Figure 2 -0
Existing and Proposed Interim and
Permanent Helistop Locations
2. Project Description
be at ground level in the western portion of the project site toward the professional office and
commercial uses to the west of the site. The interim location would be within a landscaped area to
the west of the parking lot on the west side of the hospital tower. This location is approximately
300 feet northeast of Rancho Pueblo Road and 450 feet north of Temecula Parkway.
With buildout of the hospital project, the helistop would be relocated to the roof of a future
second hospital tower (Bed Tower #2), which would be approximately 350 feet north of
Temecula Parkway, east of the main hospital entrance. Once the permanent helistop is
operational, the interim helistop would be removed.
The two helistop locations, both interim and permanent, are designed in compliance with FAA
and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics flight path requirements, to minimize impacts on
neighboring residences (specifically the Madera Vista apartments to the east, Los Ranchitos
neighborhood single- family homes to the north, and Country Glen neighborhood single- family
residences to the south), and provide operational functionality for the delivery of hospital
services. In addition, each helistop site (interim and permanent) would have two flight paths to
meet the FAA's requirement. The prevailing wind direction in the project region is to the east,
except during Santa Ana wind conditions that blow westward. Helicopters approach and land
heading into prevailing winds for maximum control over the aircraft. Hence, helicopters
approaching the hospital helistop would generally approach from the east, flying westbound into
the wind to land at the helistop; and take off also in a westbound direction. During Santa Ana or
westbound wind conditions, which occur occasionally in the project region, helicopters would
approach from the west flying eastbound to land at the site, and take off also in an eastbound
direction.
Helistop Designs
Pursuant to Caltrans Division of Aeronautics obstruction- clearance requirements for helistops, the
interim helistop design would be circular in shape with a 48 -foot diameter touchdown and liftoff
(TLOF) area from which helicopters would land and take off. As shown on Figure 2 -5, I lelistop
Design Characteristics, the helistop would have an 86 -foot diameter final approach and takeoff
area (FATO) and a surrounding 16 -foot wide safety area, which would both be centered on the
TLOF area to ensure that objects remain out of the TLOF and FATO area boundaries (except for
maximum 2 -inch perimeter lighting).
The standard hospital helistop identifier, a red - colored 10 -foot by 6 -foot, 8 -inch underlined "H"
would be painted on a white cross within a red - colored circle denoting the location of the helistop
from the viewpoint of helicopter pilots. White legends would be painted within the red circle,
including "TV H," the abbreviation for the Temecula Valley Hospital, and "PVT", which denotes
private use, as the helistop would be privately -owned and operated by UHS. Additional required
markings would include a 12 -inch wide solid white perimeter stripe and a maximum helicopter
overall length marking to inform approaching pilots of the size limitation of the helistop.
Portland Cement Concrete materials would be used for construction of ground -level surfaces for
the interim location. The interim helistop would be connected to a 4 -foot wide Americans with
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Protect 2 -9 ESA 1 1]0652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
Disabilities Act (ADA)- compliant pedestrian walkway located adjacent to a 15 -foot wide
vehicular driveway that would access an internal road on the west side of the project site. In
addition, the helistop would be surrounded by a five -foot tall security fence.
The permanent helistop would be located on the roof of the future hospital tower. The design of
the helistop would be similar to the interim location but would consist of a 58 -foot by 58 -foot
square TLOF where helicopters would land and take off'- Markings would be identical to the
interim helistop except that it would also include a 12,000 -pound weight limitation marking to
inform approaching pilots of the limitations.
Lighting
The interim helistop would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations. The
project proposes the use of red obstruction lights on light standards that would be photocell -
controlled for dusk -to -dawn operation. The Phase I hospital tower (that currently exists onsite)
would have red obstruction lights, one three - colored (green, white, and yellow) heliport beacon
light, and one lighted windcone installed to provide pilots with wind information during landings
and takeoffs. Other lighting would include 12 green Flush - mounted perimeter lights surrounding
the TLOF, five green lead -in lights aligned with the primary approach path from the northeast,
and a 16 -foot tall lighted windcone located northwest of the helistop. Lighting at the helistop
(perimeter lights, lead -in lights and local lighted windcone) would be activated only for nighttime
landings or takeoffs and is proposed in accordance with Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
requirements.
The permanent helistop would include similar lighting except that lead -in lights would not be
needed on the rooftop facility. The red obstruction lights on parking lot light standards and other
lighting associated with the interim helistop would be removed once operation of the permanent
helistop commences.
Hospital Storage Building
As shown on Figure 2 -6, Hospital Storage Building Elevations, the new storage building would
be square in shape and would total 5,000 square feet in area. The structure would consist of a
single story reaching a total of 22 feet high with the inclusion of a cornice that would create
architectural consistency with the other hospital buildings. The exterior facades of the storage
building would include the same stucco siding material and beige color palette of the main
hospital building in order to maintain design compatibility throughout the hospital campus. In
addition, exterior entrance and security lighting around the storage building would be consistent
with that of the rest of the hospital facility, and would be limited, shielded, or directed downward.
—' Per FAA advisory circular AC 150/5390 -2C the TLOF dimensions are increased for an elevated versus ground
level TLOF. The rooftop TLOF dimensions must equal the design helicopter's overall length, which in this case
would be 58 -foot by 58 -foot square for the Bell Huey 212 and 412. The larger TLOF will still support the same
design helicopter as the interim ground level TLOF. The primary aircraft using the helistops will be the EC -135 as
stated above; however, the "design aircraft' refers to the largest aircraft that may legally land at the helistop.
Temet,ula Valley Hospital Heluat, Project 2 -10 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impad Report November 2014
Site Layout
a TLrw- CdorlGrwn- WNWYwwl
TO Pvt•el• Fn E•Brgw•Mr
MalipM Bwcm
- +- FWetlm• W ".. COn.
}} Mli Lip'. W... wM FMO
^' T. B• hew•M. LwwrM. a h .
OEwrua . LqM
Lp Opebuctim CMrYC•. Y
• Pc iii —nIM Di H LEO
Pppopruu
OE•Lrunw Ll".r' 8.1
• Grwn LED FWah -Mwn1 P•nm•br LogM
• 9M `WiwO Pwwmnt MMw" W" Two
y". Lwn•w a S.l.w IOPem•I)
Il Wrt De1W
a w
Pew
iwwc' Ve H-pn•I Ileblop SEIR. 13M52
5(IJXGE R•YM—.
Flguro 2 -5
Interim Helislop Design Charactenstics
wPxlcE ro w.xN Cw FM EMLCN
E451M NOSPRNL� iOP PNUFEET EXL N PILNL rW PAW
AHAD.w eolt WXICdyS iYP _ — _ }�V P "ory WIN n L�
OV MQNF MRPR.
pRYW/1L N`LLdINIERpR D .LLLMKL ON p11ERCM
J
EMERORCOLOR8 LO 1MiCX -- E%TCROPCOLORS iO WiCN F -� ,
ENISiIXO1p9PIiK. iYP ERIBiM3 XJ6Pn/.L. iYP
SLFLOOR n
li li- Il— _ -1 -_- _ _ - - —I - - - - - - - - DTI -111 Iii= 1i1= 1u= 1i1= 1i1= 1i1= 1u =1i1�11- fir- liLln�i fl`- RfJ-Tlai
it -III =1 I I- Ill =W =111= - 11 =11�1r $111 I -� - -lll =111 - is i ia�tlili i -ITi -i u= Iii- w -iTi- iii =iTi -u i= iii -i n- iii =mom i i� I � i i�Tr� i � i i-
1� Ti =1 i II= II -L=Ill -111m -I I I_I I I III- I�- I�11ll111111�, LI =�1 =� 111- ��I�llll1�I - - -1L
i�liiilliillliTillliiiLlilllliir" II�i��ii�iTiTui�I�lii1lu�liiriT�l�= 1il- ,•`ITi`°u Ti ail
SOYIII E .wn FAIL Elv 9 n
TOPPAF"
90URCE: HMG Pr ..
s lAr
W.M EWMIm
o to
TemecuM VBNay Hospital Helislop SEIP.1906'
Figure 2 -6
Hospital Storage Building Elevations
The storage building would be used to store non - hazardous materials such as disaster supplies,
"attic stock" for the hospital (extra materials and supplies kept on -hand for maintenance and
repair of hospital facilities), and linens. The storage building would not utilize any machinery or
equipment, except for I I VAC equipment that is similar to those used on other hospital buildings.
In addition, the storage building would not operate in such a manner that would require or result
in additional traffic trips beyond those generated by the overall hospital facility.
Operation
The hospital is operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I lelicopter flights associated with the
hospital would be intermittent and take place on an emergency basis only going to or from the
Temecula Valley Hospital to another hospital with more intensive care facilities. Under normal
(prevailing) wind conditions, helicopters would approach the helistops from the northeast, land,
pick -up (or, rarely, drop -off) a patient, and depart toward the southwest. During Santa Ana or
other easterly winds, helicopters would operate in the reverse direction. The hospital operator
predicts, on average, two helicopter landings would occur per week (eight per month), although
actual frequency would vary depending on the timing of medical emergencies and needed
transport for critical care patients. It is anticipated that two emergency medical helicopter
operators, Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services, flying Airbus Helicopters EC 135
helicopters would utilize the helistop to transport patients.
2.5 Discretionary Approvals
The Major Modification for the helistop relocation involves discretionary approvals from the City
of Temecula, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, FAA, and the Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC), which are listed below.
Agency Action
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
City of Temecula
State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development ( OSHPD)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
• Development Plan Major Modification including design
and site review.
• CUP Major Modification for proposed interim and
permanent helistops and storage building.
• City Council approval of project and certification of SEIR.
• Review and issuance of construction permits for
windcone lighting, 3 -color helistop beacon, and red
obstruction lights for the interim location have occurred.
Full OSHPD review and approval for the future hospital
tower and permanent helistop location would occur in
the future.
• Review of airspace study and issuance of an airspace
determination letter, consistent with Part 157 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations was issued for the interim
helistop on July 3, 2013: and the permanent helistop
would undergo design review during the future hospital
tower design phase.
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Review and approval of proposed helistop and issuance
of Helislop Site Approval Permit, which represents
agreement with the design concept and authorizes
helistop construction. The Helistop Permit follows a post -
construction inspection and authorizes start-up of flight
operations. Interim helistop received Conditional Plan
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Project 2 -13 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
Agency Action
Approval on June 12, 2013, and the permanent helistop
would undergo design review during the future hospital
tower design phase. Additionally, Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics makes annual onsite inspections of hospital
helistops throughout the state to ensure continued
compliance with its design requirements.
The California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a) states that emergency aircraft
flights for medical purposes by law enforcement, firefighting, military, or other persons who
provide emergency flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances adopted by a
city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, that restrict flight departures
and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, that restrict the departure or arrival of
aircraft based upon the aircraft's noise level, or that restrict the operation of certain types of
aircraft (emphasis added to project related code text). Pursuant to this, the City cannot restrict
helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes.
2.6 Cumulative Projects
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address cumulative impacts of a
project when the project's incremental effect would be cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively
considerable" means that "the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects' (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(c)). A cumulative effect is
not deemed considerable if the effect would be essentially the same whether the proposed project is
implemented or not.
Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states that "cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." A
cumulative impact is not considered significant if the impact can be mitigated to below the level
of significance through mitigation, including providing improvements and /or contributing funds
through fee - payment programs. The EIR must examine "reasonable options for mitigating or
avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project" (CEQA Guidelines Section
15130(a)(3) and 15130(b)(5)).
According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative effects "... need
not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The
discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness." The evaluation of
cumulative impacts is required by Section 15130 to be based on either:
(A) a list ofpast, present, and probable fututre projects producing related or cumulative
impacts, including, ifnecessaty, those projects outside the control ofthe agency, or (B)
a summate, ofprojections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning
document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified,
which described or evaluated regional or urea -wide conditions contributing to the
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2 -14 ESA 1 1X652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
cumulative effect. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available
to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency.
Cumulative Projects
Cumulative projects include recently completed projects, projects currently under construction,
and future projects currently in development. The potential for projects to have a cumulative
impact depends on both geographic location as well as project schedule.
The proposed project area is located in the southern portion of the City of Temecula. The
potential for specific project - generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact
would occur if the impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This
geographic area varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated (aesthetics, hazards,
noise, etc.) and the geographic extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area
associated with noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by noise generated by
the proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects.
Table 2 -1 lists current and proposed projects that could potentially contribute to cumulative
impacts within the project area. Locations of cumulative projects are shown in Figure 2 -7,
Cumulative Projects.
TABLE 2.1
PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Figure No. Planning Development
Reference Jurisdiction Type Description Status
City of Temecula Residential
A Tentative Tract Map application to create 7 single-
Proposed
family residential lots located approximately 15,000 feet
east of Santiago and Ynez Road.
City of Temecula Institutional
A Major Modification application for the UHS Temecula
Under
Regional Hospital to modify the phasing of the project,
Construction
reducing the bed count from 178 to 140 in phase one and
to build out the project to 320 beds by the year 2026. The
project also includes other minor site plan revisions and a
change in the hospital building construction from concrete
to framed construction. The project is located on the north
side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 650 feet west
of Margarita Road.
City of Temecula Office
A Development Plan application to allow for the
Approved
construction of three office buildings totaling 37,926
square feet within PDO -8 located at the southwest corner
of De Portola Road and Margarita Road.
City of Temecula Commercial/
Redevelopment of the existing 305 -acre site into a Resort
Proposed
Residential
Community by expanding the hotel with 99 new rooms,
expanding the conference center, adding a spa, and
adding a private residential component. The golf course
would be re- designed by eliminating 9 holes and creating
an 18 -hole championship golf course. Private residential
land uses would be introduced that would include 409
dwelling units, with a mix of single family detached
homes, townhomes and stacked Flat units. The proposed
Project would re -align and improve portions of Rainbow
Canyon Road along the property frontage to comply with
the City of Temecula's engineering standards for radii and
site distance.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2 -15 ESA 1 130652
Graft Supplemental Environmental Impact Repon November 2014
Figure No. Planning Development
Reference Jurisdiction Type
Description
Status
5 City of Temecula Residential
A Development Plan to construct 77 single family homes
Approved
on a condominium at the southeast corner of Peach Tree
Street and Deer Hollow Way.
6 City of Temecula Mixed Use
A Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Subdivision
Proposed
Maps, Development Agreement for Development of up to
1,750 residential units, limited neighborhood- serving
commercial, civic/institutional uses, parks, and open
space within a 270 -acre area. The proposed project
would construct the Western Bypass that would link
Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road.
7 City of Temecula Commercial
A Development Plan to construct a 4,700 square foot
Approved
Navy Federal Credit Union building with three drive -thru
lanes located approximately 150 feet south of Temecula
Parkway, on the west side of Jedediah Smith Road.
8 City of Temecula Commercial
A Development Plan for the construction of two structures
Under
totaling 54,860 square feet for medical offices generally
Construction
located on the north side of Temecula Parkway,
approximately 400 feet east of the Jedediah Smith and
Temecula Parkway intersection.
9 City of Temecula Commercial
A Development Plan to construct a two -story, 11,982
Approved
square foot medical office building on a 0.92 acre vacant
lot located at the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway
and Dona Lynora.
10 City of Temecula Commercial
A Development Plan to construct a 29,211 square foot,
Approved
two -story professional office building located on the west
side of Avenida de Missiones, approximately 200 feet
south of Temecula Parkway.
11 City of Temecula Residential
A Multi- family residential Development Plan to construct
Under
the 288 apartment units at the northwest corner of
Construction
Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway.
12 City of Temecula Residential
A Development Plan to construct 186 single - family
Under
attached units (90 rowhome units and 96 motorcourt
Construction
units) at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and
Meadows Parkway.
13 City of Temecula Residential
A Development Plan to construct a 140 unit attached
Approved
residential project, including two story townhomes and
three story walk -up flats, also with a pool and clubhouse
for project residents, located on approximately 7 acres at
the southernmost point of Pujol Street, on the west side of
the street.
14 City of Temecula Residential
A Tentative Tract Map revision for 59 detached
Approved
condominium units located at the northeast corner of
Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Road.
15 City of Temecula Commercial
A Major Modification to Development Plan to construct a
Under
one -story, 12,554 square foot outpatient surgery center
Construction
building on a 1.01 acre vacant lot located at the northeast
corner of Temecula Parkway and Rancho Pueblo Road.
SOURCE: City of Temecula Planning Department, 2014.
Tememla Valley Hospital Helstop Prolett 2 -16 ESA / 130652
Draft Supplemental Enrmnmenlal Impaa Report November 2014
sti i
6
�t
1A
75
® Cumulative Projects
l— .I City of Temecula
T
o 3200
Feel
Qoato\pao �....
� 2 79 ,
75 O
Project Locati
10
�F
m�
mk
^N
I�'9m
\- m
Pm
(51
0 J\�*
FP \P
SOURCE: ESRI: City of Temecula. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR. 130652
Figure 2 -7
Cumulative Projects
CHAPTER 3
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures
Through preparation of an Initial Study, the City determined that the proposed project may have a
significant impact related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise, and should be evaluated in an SEIR.
In addition, the Initial Study determined that all other CEQA related environmental topic areas
would not be impacted to such a degree as to require analysis in this SEIR. The Initial Study is
included as Appendix A. Therefore, environmental impact areas evaluated within this SEIR are
limited to aesthetics, hazards, and noise, as further described throughout Chapter 3.
3.1 Aesthetics
The purpose of this section is to identify the existing aesthetics (visual quality) environment in
the project vicinity, analyze compliance with the City of Temecula General Plan, zoning code and
ordinances; identify potential significant impacts created by the proposed project, and recommend
mitigation measures to reduce the significance of impacts.
3.1.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Temecula Valley Hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently developed with
Phase I of the hospital. This includes a five -story hospital tower, onsite driveways, and parking
lots. The project site fronts Temecula Parkway within a developed area of the City of Temecula.
The site terrain is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward De Portola Road. The elevation at the
center of the site is approximately 1,147 mean sea level (MSL), and the elevation at De Portola
Road is approximately 1,065 feet MSL. North of De Portola Road, the terrain transitions to
rolling hillsides, with the highest elevation above De Portola Road in the project vicinity rising to
approximately 1,223 MSL, which provides views of the site, south Temecula, and the Palomar
Mountains in the background.
Low density single- family residential development exists within the rolling hills to the north.
Multi - family residential is located to the east of the project site. Medical office buildings exist to
the southeast, near the comer of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; and office buildings are
also located to the west of the project site. In addition, retail commercial and single- family
residential uses exist across Temecula Parkway to the south of the project site.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellalop Project 3.1 -1 ESA 1 13064
Draft Supplemenul Eov,roomemal Impact Repon November 2014
3. Environmental selling, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
The existing hospital uses on the project site provide nighttime lighting from exterior building
and parking lot lighting, lighting emanating from hospital windows and doors, and lighting
associated with hospital signage. The existing hospital utilizes low- pressure sodium outdoor
lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655 and City of Temecula Design
Guidelines and Development Code.
The areas adjacent to the project site currently generate nighttime lighting and glare from exterior
lighting on residences, office buildings, and retail commercial areas. In addition, parking lot
security lighting, and lighting from cars traveling along Temecula Parkway, De Portola Road,
Margarita Road, Dartolo Road, and Dona Lynora currently generate a moderate level of lighting
and glare, which is typical for a developed area within the City.
3.1.2 Regulatory Setting
City of Temecula Outdoor Lighting Regulations — Ordinance 655
The City of Temecula has adopted Riverside County's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance
655), which restrict nighttime lighting for areas within a 15 -mile radius and a 45 -mile radius of
the Palomar Observatory. The project site is located within the 45 -mile radius (Zone B) of the
Observatory. Within Zone B, the use of most types of outdoor lighting is prohibited after 11:00
p.m., and outdoor lighting must be shielded and focused on the object to be illuminated.
Decorative lighting is allowed; however, decorative lighting is required to be shut off by 11:00
p.m. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11:00 p.m., the amount of light and /or glare is reduced
during late evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research at
the Mount Palomar Observatory. The ordinance also establishes the type of lighting that may be
used in Zone B, such as low- pressure sodium lighting. The ordinance provides exemptions for
holiday decorative lights and nonconforming uses.
City of Temecula Design Guidelines
The City of Temecula has adopted Citywide Design Guidelines, which include the following that
are related to the project:
a. All lighting shall be shielded to minimize glare upon neighboring properties. The shield
shall be painted to match the surface to which it is attached.
b. Light fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with the building design.
c. All building entrances shall be well -lit.
d. Parking lots and access shall be illuminated with a minimum of 1 footcandle of lighting.
e. Walkways and paseos shall be illuminated with a minimum of I footcandle to ensure safe
nighttime conditions.
f Light fixtures shall be sited, directed, and /or shielded to prevent spot lighting, glare, or
light spillage beyond property lines.
g. Lighting fixtures shall be shown on the landscaping plans.
Temewla Valley Hceptal Helistop Project 3.1 -2 ESA 1 1]0652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Repon November 2014
3. Environmental setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
h. The lighting of building elements and trees is an effective and attractive lighting
technique that is encouraged; however, light sources for wall washing and tree lighting
should be hidden.
3.1.3 Impact Assessment
Methodology
This aesthetics analysis is based on consideration of the following: (1) the extent of change
related to the proposed project from public vantage points; (2) the degree of contrast and
compatibility between proposed project elements and the existing surroundings; and (3) proposed
project conformance with policies and regulations.
In addition, the nighttime lighting analysis is based on consideration of whether light substantially
interferes with, or intrudes into, sensitive land uses (including residences), or substantially
impacts views in the area. Analysis of glare takes into consideration whether glare produced by
the proposed project would result in daytime interferences with activities at sensitive land uses or
public roadways where drivers can be temporarily blinded by glare, thus causing a safety concern.
Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could have a potentially
significant impact with respect to aesthetics if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
As determined in the NOP /Initial Study (Appendix A), implementation of the proposed project
would not result in impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic
highway; or the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, no further
analysis of these topics is included in the EIR.
Light and Glare
Implementation of the proposed project would require the installation of a 48 -foot diameter
interim helistop at ground level in the western portion of the project site toward the professional
office and commercial uses to the west of the site. Pursuant to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics
requirements, the interim helistop would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime
operations. The proposed project would include red obstruction lights on parking lot light
standards. The existing hospital tower would have red obstruction lights, one three - colored
(green, white, and yellow) heliport beacon light, and one lighted windcone to provide pilots with
Temecula valley Hospital Helistop project 3.1 -3 ESA / 130652
Draft Supplemental Emrommental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
wind information during landings and takeoffs. The interim helistop would have 12 green flush -
mounted perimeter lights surrounding the touchdown and liftoff (TLOF) area and five green lead -
in lights aligned with the primary approach path. In addition, a 16 -foot tall lighted windcone
would be located northwest of the helistop. The helistop lighting would be on intermittently; only
prior to and during nighttime landings or takeoffs. The total number of helistop flights (landing
and take -off) is anticipated to be eight times per month, which could occur anytime of the day or
night.
The permanent helistop would be located on the roof of the planned five -story hospital tower. The
design of the helistop would be similar to the interim location but would consist of a 58 -foot by
58 -foot square TLOF where helicopters would land and take off. The permanent helistop would
include lighting that is similar to the interim helistop, except that lead -in lights would not be
needed on the rooftop facility. The red obstruction lights on parking lot light standards and other
lighting associated with the interim helistop would be removed once operation of the permanent
helistop commences. All of the directional and obstruction lights would be implemented in
compliance with FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics permitting regulations.
Helicopters using both the interim and permanent helistops would use typical running lights,
which include red and green position lights on the sides of the aircraft and anti - collision lights to
indicate the helicopter's position. Helicopters would also use a landing light to light the helistop
during landing. This light is located in the front of the helicopter and is turned on by the pilot at
nighttime upon approach, and would be directed to the helistop to support a safe landing. Under
prevailing wind conditions, helicopters would approach from the east, flying west into the wind.
As shown on Figure 2 -4 in the Project Description, for the interim condition, this approach would
cross a large portion of the site prior to the helistop, and it is likely that pilots would turn on the
landing light while over the hospital site. Under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopters would
fly, and descend, over Temecula Parkway, office and parking lot uses, and a portion of the
hospital site prior to reaching the helistop, and it is likely that pilots would turn on the landing
light while over Temecula Parkway or the office uses located to the west of the hospital site.
Under both conditions, the landing lights during the approach would be directed forward toward
the helistop TLOF lighting that identifies the location of the helistop. Similarly, during use of the
permanent helistop, the landing light would be focused on the top of the hospital tower. The
height of the permanent helistop location would further reduce lighting on non - hospital ground
level uses. Under all conditions, a helicopter's landing light would focus forward at an angle
toward the helistop, not downward upon non - hospital uses, and this light would not interfere
with, or intrude into, nighttime views or activities in the area. As a result, the use of standard
helicopter lights during periodic helicopter flights would not create a new source of substantial
light adversely affecting nearby uses and would not result in significant lighting impacts.
In addition to the lighting described above, lighting that is similar to the existing parking lot,
walkway, and security lighting would be used at night to facilitate safe transport of patients
between the interim helistop location and the hospital. The permanent helistop would use
footlights along the walkway between the hospital elevator and helistop deck surface. The
lighting used to safely transport patients to and from the helistop locations would also be
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1 -4 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
intermittent and would be activated after the helicopter has landed and turned off before its
departure. This lighting would be directed to the specific areas where safe pass through is needed
and be oriented to avoid off -site light spillover onto adjacent properties, consistent with the City's
lighting standards.
All helistop- related lighting that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA or Caltrans
aeronautics would be regulated by the City of Temecula and comply with the City's Design
Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655. The Development Code and Design Guidelines
require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. Lighting is required to be
directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto
adjacent parcels. The applicant would utilize low - pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures,
which is consistent with Ordinance 655 to ensure that light or glare would not result from the
project that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
While some lights related to the interim helistop would be visible from nearby residences and
other land uses, the landscaping around the hospital site, such as the tall trees adjacent to the
eastern boundary of the project and on residential parcels to the north and northwest, reduces the
potential for spillover of light onto adjacent properties. In addition, the shielding of light from
appropriate installation of light fixtures limits the potential of light spillover. Because the helistop
lighting would only be used prior to and during nighttime landings or takeoffs, the lights could be
visible approximately eight times per month, should all flights occur at nighttime. These lights
would be similar to, and blend into, the existing onsite hospital lighting and the commercial,
office, residential, and street related lighting in the project vicinity. Because the lighting would be
on intermittently and would be similar to existing lighting in the developed area, lighting related
to the interim helistop would not substantially affect viewers' nighttime vision.
The lights related to the permanent helistop would be located on the top of the five -story hospital
tower building, and would be low -level lighting that is consistent with the City's Design
Guidelines and Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that would be directed toward the interior of the roof
top to avoid casting shadows onto adjacent properties. Some of the rooftop lighting from the
permanent helistop would be visible from nearby residences and other land uses, but would be
consistent with the existing hospital lighting and would not affect viewers' nighttime vision.
In addition, lighting associated with the proposed storage building would be minimal, consisting
of entranceway lighting and security lighting mounted on the building as well as possible
footlights on the pathway leading to the building from the main hospital building. As with the
helistop locations, lighting for the proposed storage building would be installed in compliance
with the City's Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655, which requires
illumination levels onto adjacent property lines be minimal. Hence, lighting from the storage
building would consist of low- pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures that are directed down
and /or shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the nighttime sky and onto adjacent parcels,
which is consistent with Ordinance 655 and would not result in substantial levels of spillover
light onto adjacent roadways or properties such that nighttime views or activities would be
affected.
Temecula valley Hospital Hallslop Project 3.1 -5 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemenul Environmenul Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
In conclusion, with the limited operation of lighting for helicopter landings and departures during
nighttime hours, consistency with FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and City of Temecula lighting
regulations, lighting associated with the proposed helistop would not substantially interfere with,
or intrude into, adjacent land uses, or substantially impact nighttime vision. Furthermore, the
limited lighting required for the proposed storage building that would include exterior lighting to
illuminate the walkway and provide a security area around the building (consistent with the other
hospital buildings) would be shielded and directed downward, and installed pursuant to the City's
municipal code, which requires that all lighting be prevented from spilling over onto adjacent
areas. Compliance with FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and City of Temecula lighting regulations
would provide that light and glare generated by the project would not substantially interfere with
or intrude into adjacent land uses to affect day or nighttime vision. As a result, impacts related to
light would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not introduce a substantial source of glare to the project area that
would affect views in the area because the project would construct the interim and permanent
helistops and storage building using typical building materials (i.e., concrete, stucco, steel, paint,
etc.), which would not create substantial daytime glare. Sources of daytime glare could include
the helicopter while on the interim helistop, which would be at ground level. However, the
helistop would only accommodate one helicopter that would be temporarily parked on the
helistop between patient loading or unloading approximately eight times per month. Due to the
limited and temporary source of potential glare from implementation of the proposed project,
impacts related to glare would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative aesthetics study area for the proposed project is the viewshed that the project lies
within. This includes the areas adjacent to the project site that can view the project. The project
site is developed with hospital uses that generate light, and the vicinity of the project is fully
developed with residential, commercial, and other medical or hospital related uses; and as
described above, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and thereby, result in significant
impacts related to nighttime lighting and glare.
In general, cumulative development, including the existing, proposed, approved, and reasonably
foreseeable projects listed in Table 2 -1, would also result in increased nighttime lighting and
daytime glare. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code and Design Guidelines would limit
glare and spillover lighting that would be generated by new development throughout the City.
Therefore, while development of the project and the cumulative projects would generate an
increase in nighttime lighting and daytime glare, future individual development projects would be
required to conform to City requirements that would have a mitigating effect on light and glare.
The closest cumulative projects include development of a new medical office building located at
the northwest comer of Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora (identified as 9 on Figure 2 -7), and
Temecula Valley Hospital Melistop Protect 3.1-6 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Sedinl Impacts. and Mitigation Measures
development of three office buildings at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Margarita
Road (identified as 3 on Figure 2 -7). These projects have been approved by the City and would
include nighttime lighting features typical of office buildings, including security lighting on the
exterior of the building, entranceway and signage lighting, and parking lot lighting. As with the
proposed project, the cumulative projects would be required to be consistent with the City's
Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655, which includes requirement to minimize
illumination levels onto adjacent property lines, direct lighting down and fully shielded to reduce
the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels, and the use of low - pressure
sodium outdoor lighting fixtures. As a result, implementation of the lighting and glare generated
from the City compliant lighting at the already developed hospital site that would include the new
helistop and storage building when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
cumulative projects would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to lighting
and glare. Cumulative impacts are less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Temecula valley Hospdal Helistop Project 3.1 -7 ESN 1190652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Repon November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Hazards
This section describes the potential adverse impacts on public safety and the environment from
hazards that could result from the proposed project. The analysis is focused on potential risks
related to operation of the helistop and surrounding uses. An overview of the regulatory
framework related to helistop facilities is followed by an analysis of potential impacts.
3.2.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Existing Helicopter Operations at the Project Site
The hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently being used for operation of Phase
1 of the hospital. Existing development on the site includes a five -story hospital tower, onsite
driveways, and parking lots. The helistop that was approved with the hospital project is not yet
developed. However, the hospital currently uses the approved helistop site as an EMS landing site
when necessary. Helicopter transport of patients from the hospital has been needed 29 times
between the opening of the hospital on October 14, 2013 and September 30, 2014. The most
helicopter transports per month took place in May 2014, when helicopter transport was necessary
7 times; followed by April 2014 when helicopter transport occurred 6 times. To ensure safety
during these procedures, the City of Temecula Fire and Police Departments coordinated with the
hospital to ensure safety surrounding the helicopter landing area and restrict access to the area
during helicopter landing and departure.
As described below in the Regulatory Setting section, the California Code of Regulations Title 21
Section 3527(g) states that a site (such as the project site) can be used for the landing and taking
off of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) helicopters upon approval of the fire or police
departments because it is located at a medical facility, as long as it averages no more than six
landings per month with patients on board over a 12 -month period.
Existing Hazard - Related Conditions in the Project Vicinity
Prevailing winds in the project area are traveling east. The closest public use airport facility is the
French Valley Airport, which is located approximately 6.6 miles northwest from the project site.
The project site lies far outside of the French Valley Airport compatibility zones and airport
influence area, and is not within the planned traffic pattern of the proposed helistop locations.
The land uses in the vicinity of the hospital include:
• Single- family residences and an equestrian trail to the north and northwest;
• Single- family and commercial properties to the southwest and southeast, beyond
Temecula Parkway;
• Professional medical offices to the west; and
• Multi - family residential, commercial, medical office and a flood control channel are to
the east.
Temecula valley Hospital Relistop Project 3.2 -1 ESN 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Aviation Administration
The FAA is the federal agency that establishes standards for the design of the helistop, and the
rules for pilot and helicopter operations. The FAA's primary responsibility is to determine what,
if any, effect the landing and taking off of helicopters would have on the air traffic and related
safety hazards in the vicinity of the project site.
FAA Advisory Circular — (AC) 150/5390/2C, "Heliport Design" provides the standards used
to design heliports in the United States. This includes defining acceptable approach, landing,
takeoff, and safety areas that must be maintained clear of obstructions. The FAA also provides
standards for the placement of lighting, windcones, beacons, and other heliport markings. Chapter
4 of the AC provides recommendations for hospital heliports, and describes essential features of
ground -level and rooftop hospital helistops, safety areas, and minimum dimensions (Figures 4 -1,
4 -2, and 4 -5; Pages 110 -111, and 117 of the AC). In addition, the AC describes the appropriate
approach and departure transitional surfaces, flight path dimensions, and heliport protection
zones. Section 417 of the AC includes the following security and safety considerations for the
design of a helistop:
• Provide a means to keep the operational areas of a hospital heliport clear of people,
animals, and vehicles. Use a method to control access depending upon the helicopter
location and types of potential intruders.
At ground -level hospital heliports, erect a safety barrier around the helicopter operational
areas in the form of a fence or a wall. Construct the barrier no closer to the operation
areas than the outer perimeter of the safety area. Make sure the barrier does not penetrate
any approach/departure (primary or transitional) surface. If necessary in the vicinity of
the approach /departure paths, install the barrier well outside the outer perimeter of the
safety area.
• Barrier should be high enough to present a deterrent to persons inadvertently entering an
operational area and yet low enough to be non - hazardous to helicopter operations.
• Display a cautionary sign on gates and doors. As an option at hospital heliport, secure
operational areas via the use of security guards and a mixture of fixed and movable
barriers.
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 157, Notice of Construction, Activation, and
Deactivation of Airports establishes standards and notification requirements for projects that
propose to construct, alter, or deactivate an air facility. The notification allows the FAA to
identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance, to prevent and minimize any adverse impacts
and provide safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. FAR Part 157 serves as the basis for
evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft
and the safety of persons and property on the ground. These effects include but are not limited to
evaluating:
TemeWa Valley Hospital Heletop Project 3.2-2 ESA 1130654
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Haunts
• The effects the proposed action would have on existing or proposed traffic patterns of
neighboring airports,
• The effect the proposed action would have on the existing airspace structure and
projected programs of the FAA, and
• The effects that existing or proposed objects (on file with the FAA) within the affected
area would have on the airport proposal.
After conducting airspace studies per FAR 157, the FAA issued its airspace determination letter
for the existing site on March 15, 2012, and a separate airspace determination letter for the
interim helistop on July 3, 2013. These letters document the FAA's conclusion that the proposed
helislops are acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and meet all FAA design
considerations. The letters state that the FAA does not object to the establishment of the proposed
landing areas, and provide determinations related to the safe and efficient use of navigable
airspace by aircraft with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.
Federal Regulation 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 77 establishes standards and
notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. This notification serves as the
basis for:
• Evaluating the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on operating procedures,
• Determining the potential hazardous effect of the proposed construction on air
navigation,
• Identifying mitigating measures to enhance safe air navigation, and
• Charting of new objects.
FAA FAR Part 77 includes the establishment of imaginary surfaces that allows the FAA to
identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance, thus preventing or minimizing the adverse
impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. The regulations identify three -
dimensional imaginary surfaces through which no object should penetrate. Section 77.29 (Airport
Imaginary Surfaces for Heliports) establishes this "imaginary surface" as (a) a primary surface
defined as the designated takeoff and landing area of a heliport; (b) an approach surface that
begins at each end of the primary surface and extends outward and upward for 4,000 feet,
extending at a 8:1 slope, and (c) a transitional surface that extends outward and upward from the
primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of two to one for a distance of 250 feet.
An object that would be constructed or altered within the imaginary surface area of the heliport
would be subject to the FAA requirements.
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
The Division of Aeronautics within Caltrans is the state permitting agency for helistops, and
reviews all the documentation and approvals submitted from the local government agencies and
the FAA to make the final determination as to the safety and appropriateness of the location for a
helistop and the adequacy of the helistop design. Caltrans has adopted many of the design
Temecula Valley Hosgtal Hel glop Project 3.2 -3 ESA 1130652
Orafl Supplemental Envl,,mmemal Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts. and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Hazards
standards set forth in the FAA AC 150/5390 -2C, and has developed some additional criteria of its
own (Title 21, Sec. 3525 through 3560, California Code of Regulations).
California Code of Regulations (CCRs), Title 21
Sections 3525 through 3560 provides rules, regulations, and permit requirements related to the
proposed helistop that incorporate most of the FAA regulations, including: design standards,
lighting standards, visual standards, obstruction standards. All of the standards and regulations
contained with CCR, Title 21, Sections 3525 through 3560 related to the adequacy of helistop
design, including marking, lighting, and visual aids must be met to receive a helistop operating
permit from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.
State of California Aeronautics Law, State Aeronautics Act, and Public Utility Code
provides regulations to protect the public interest in aeronautics by fostering and promoting safety
in aeronautics; ensuring uniformity of the laws and regulations relating to aeronautics consistent
with federal aeronautics laws and regulations; assuring that persons residing in the vicinity of
airports are protected to the greatest possible extent against intrusions by unreasonable levels of
aircraft noise; and developing informational programs to increase the understanding of current air
transportation issues including, aviation safety, planning, noise, and the role of aviation as an
integral part of the state's transportation system. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics granted
Conditional Plan Approval for the interim helistop on June 12, 2013.
Emergency Medical Service Helicopter Landing Site is defined in CCR, Title 21, Section
3527(g) as follows: A site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a
medical facility and;
• Has been designated an EMS landing site by an officer authorized by a public safety
agency, as defined in PUC Section 21662. 1, using criteria that the public safety agency
has determined is reasonable and prudent for the safe operation of EMS helicopters;
• Is used, over any twelve 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;
• Is not marked as a permitted heliport as described in Section 3554 of these regulations;
and
• Is used only for emergency medical purposes.
Examples of public safety agencies could be a fire department, police department, sheriff's
department, or county agency, etc. Therefore, an EMS helicopter landing site is not a state
permitted helistop based on the FAA's Heliport Design Guide, which provides criteria contained
to ensure an acceptable level of safety for a hospital helistop. The level of safety of each EMS
helicopter landing that is not on a permitted helistop is unknown, as each individual public safety
Temecula Valley Hospital Halle, Protect 3.2-4 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Hazards
agency may have their own criteria, which may or may not be equivalent to established helistop
safety standards (Caltrans, 1997).
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is responsible for reviewing
projects near airports or related to air facility to make sure they are consistent with approved
compatibility plans. To provide guidance for land use recommendations, an airport land use
compatibility plan was developed to promote compatibility between air facilities and the land
uses that surround them. The plan includes policies by which the ALUC operates and conducts
compatibility reviews of proposed development actions; describes the overall context of airport
land use compatibility planning in general and for airports in Riverside County in particular; and
the procedures that the ALUC would follow in making compatibility determinations. The
proposed helistop project was reviewed by the ALUC on February 13, 2014 received a
determination of consistency with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
City of Temecula Municipal Code
17.40.130 General requirements — Airports and helipads: All wireless telecommunication
facilities and antennas located at or near any airport or helipad shall comply with the following
measures:
A. No telecommunication facility or antenna shall be installed within the safety zone of any
airport or any helipad unless the airport land use commission indicates that it will not
adversely affect the operation of the airport or helipad.
B. No telecommunication facility or antenna shall be installed at a location where special
painting or lighting will be required by the FAA regulations unless technical evidence
acceptable to the planning director or planning commission, as appropriate, is submitted
showing that this is the only technically feasible location for this facility.
C. Where tower lighting is required, it shall be shielded or directed to the greatest extent
possible in such a manner as to minimize the amount of light that falls onto nearby
properties, particularly residences.
3.2.3 Impact Assessment
Methodology
The analysis in this section focuses on potential hazards associated with use of the proposed
helistop facilities on the project site. The proposed project was evaluated for compliance with
existing federal and state regulations related to hospital helistop facilities and consistency with
the policies of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan that are related to implementation of
the proposed project.
Temewla Valley Hospital Helistop Prolep 3.2 -5 ESA 11]0652
Draft Supplemental Enwonmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Hazards
Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could have a potentially
significant impact with respect to hazards if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials;
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment;
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
• Be located on a site which 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, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the 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;
• 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 of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
As determined in the NOP /Initial Study (Appendix A), implementation of the proposed project
would not result in significant impacts related to routine transport of hazardous materials,
accidental release of hazardous materials, hazardous emissions, location of a hazardous materials
site, public airports, emergency response plans, or wildland fire hazards. Therefore, no further
analysis of these topics is included in the SEIR.
Safety Hazards
The proposed project would modify the approved, but not yet developed, helistop facilities in
response to FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regulations, safety factors, and recent
residential development near the project site and would include construction and operation of a
new single -story 5,000 square foot storage building.
The proposed project would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations —an
interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on top of a
future hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase. The helistop would be a location
designed for the transport of patients, and would not include fueling, service, long -term parking,
Temewla Valley Hoeptal Ilehslop Proles 3.2 -6 ESP 1 130652
Draft supplemental EnwmmEdal Impad ReWn NovemGer 201E
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Hazards
or storage of helicopters or related equipment at the site. The hospital predicts that an average of
eight helicopter flights would occur per month (four departures and four arrival flights), although
actual frequency would depend on medical needs. The proposed storage building would be
located at the previously approved helistop location in the eastern portion of the project site.
The proposed locations of both the interim and permanent helistops and the storage building are
shown on Figures 2 -3 and 2 -4 (Chapter 2, Project Description). The proposed flight paths would
route incoming flights from the east and departing flights would leave the helipad heading west,
and have been designed to avoid the existing five -story hospital building, trees, light poles, and
utility lines. In addition, the proposed flight paths consider the predominant wind direction and
avoid low altitude flying over residential areas. In addition, the proposed 5,000- square -foot
storage building would be 22 feet high (which is lower than the main hospital building) and
located between the two proposed flight paths for the interim and permanent helistops, and would
not interfere with incoming or departing flights.
The proposed flight paths were designed to be consistent with the FAA Helistop design standards
that are specified in Chapter 4 of the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390 -2C that ensure sufficient
airspace. In addition, the flight paths are consistent with the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
that include prescriptive standards for flight paths and other safety requirements designed to
provide adequate maneuvering room for pilots using the helistop. Specifically, the proposed flight
paths are designed to meet FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance standards that specify a series of
imaginary surfaces in the airspace surrounding landing areas. These surfaces include a primary
surface (a horizontal plane at helistop elevation), approach surfaces (shallow, inclined planes
along each designated flight path), and transition surfaces (steeper inclined planes to the sides of
flight paths). Per these FAA and Caltrans design requirements, the proposed flight paths are
approximately aligned with the prevailing wind and extend out from the edge of the helistop for a
distance of 4,000 feet, at a ratio of I foot vertical for every A feet horizontal distance traveled.
The FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics review and permitting procedures that are being
conducted as part of the proposed project evaluate the effects the proposed helistop would have
on the safety of persons or property on the ground and existing and proposed objects that extend
into air. Prior to providing an airspace determination letter from the FAA and a helistop permit
from Caltrans Aeronautics, both agencies would determine that the proposed helistop locations
would not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft, and
would not result in safety effects to persons or property on the ground. An airspace determination
letter from the FAA and a permit from Caltrans Aeronautics would be required prior to
construction or operation of the proposed helistop locations. In addition, the proposed project was
reviewed by the Riverside County ALUC on February 13, 2014 and received a determination of
consistency with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Implementation of
these flight paths that are consistent with FAA and Caltrans design requirements, the airport land
use plan, and operating under approvals from these agencies would reduce safety hazards to both
persons in the helicopter and people residing or working in the project area. As a result, impacts
related to substantial safety risks for people residing or working in the project area would be less
than significant.
Tememla Valley Hospital Helistop Prolea 3.2 -7 ESA 1 130652
Draft supplemental Emlronmeoul Impact Repon November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Hazards
Significance Determination: Less than significant
3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
Hazard related impacts typically occur in a local or site - specific context versus a cumulative
context combined with other development projects; although it is possible for combined effects of
hazards to occur by adjacent cumulative development that involves hazardous risks. Several
projects shown in Figure 2 -7 are in the vicinity of the project area; however, none would involve
helicopter landing or other aviation - related uses. Furthermore, except for development of the
hospital, none would involve building heights that would extend into the planned flight path, such
that a hazardous event on the project site or related to the helicopter travel would result in
cumulative impacts.
A limited increase in air traffic in the project vicinity would be generated from the project, which
would adhere to all safety regulations. The existing regulations related to the heliport design and
flight path, and the required FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and ALUC review and approvals reduce
the potential for hazardous conditions and provide safety measures such that a cumulatively
adverse condition would not occur from implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore and
as noted above, the proposed project site is not within 2 miles of a private or public airport and
would not result in any other changes in existing air patterns. Flight paths to and from the project
site would be regulated by the FAA and must meet FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance standards.
These design considerations and the limited number of helicopter flights that would occur by the
proposed project would ensure that the project's contribution to hazards impacts would be less
than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the effect of the heliport project in combination with
the cumulative development in the project vicinity would not result in cumulatively considerable
impact related to the safety of people residing or working in the project area. Hence, cumulative
impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2 -8 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact saloon November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
This section evaluates the potential for noise impacts to result from implementation of the
proposed project. This includes the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts
associated with construction noise; a substantial temporary and /or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project site; exposure of people in the vicinity of the project site
to excessive noise levels; and whether this exposure is in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance.
3.3.1 Environmental Setting
Characteristics of Sound
Sound can be technically described in terms of its sound pressure (amplitude) and frequency
(similar to pitch). Amplitude is a direct measure of the magnitude, or loudness, of a sound
without consideration for other factors that may influence its perception. The ranges of sound
pressures that occur in the environment are so large that they are expressed on a logarithmic
scale. The standard unit of measurement of sound is the decibel (dB). A sound pressure level in
dB describes the pressure of a sound relative to a reference pressure. By using a logarithmic scale,
the wide range in sound pressures is compressed to a more usable range of numbers.
For example, a sound level of 70 dB has 10 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB; while a
sound level of 80 dB has 100 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB. In terms of human
response to noise, the perception of changes in noise level is very different. A sound 10 dB higher
than another sound is usuallyjudged to be twice as loud. A sound 20 dB higher is judged four
times as loud and so forth. Therefore, due to the logarithmic nature of sound, linear addition
cannot be applied when combining two noise levels. For instance, 50 dB plus 50 dB would not
equal 100 dB. Rather, it would equal 53 dB due to the logarithmic scale of decibels. The
combination of two noise levels is achieved by converting the noise levels into acoustic energy,
adding the energy together, and then applying a logarithmic function to convert the resulting
value back into a decibel value. The following table illustrates the principal of decibel addition.
Difference between two decibel values Amount added to higher value
0or1 3
2or3 2
4to9 1
10 or more 0
SOURCE: United States Department of Labor OSHA, 2014.
Noise Principles and Descriptors
In general, the typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible 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 1-Iz
Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3 -1 ESA / 1] 52
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
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 3.3 -1.
Noise Exposure and Community Noise
An individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a
measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.3 -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 am) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these
weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value.
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, leaming; 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 1 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 doubling in loudness, and can
cause adverse response.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3 -2 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
PUBLIC REACTION
NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA, Leq)
COMMON INDOOR
NOISE LEVELS
COMMON OUTDOOR
NOISE LEVELS
Rock Band
110-
- - - - - - - - - - _
Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft.
100 _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Inside Subway Train (New York)
LOCAL COMM/TTEEACTIVITY WITH
G89 lawn Mower at 3 Ft.
INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION
T,..s AS d
—
g0
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
LETTERS OF PROTEST
`
Food Blender at 3 Ft.
Diesel Truck at 50 Ft.
COMPLAINTS LIKELY
Garbage Disposal at 3 FL
Noisy Urban Daytime
Twice AS Loud
�►
BO
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Shouting at 3 Ft.
COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE
r
��►
Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft.
Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft.
REFERENCE
70 __
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ __ ___
__ _ ______ _______ __
Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft.-
COMPLAINTS RARE
�/2 AS Loutl
,�►
50 _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
- - _ _ _ _ -
Large Business Office
50 - Dishwasher Next Room - - - - - - - - - - - -Quiet Urban Daytime - - - - -
ACCEPTANCE
40 - Small Theater, Large - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ Quiet Urban Nighttime _ _
Conference Room (Background)
Library Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Concert Hell (Background) Quiet Rural Nighttime
20______________
Broadcast and Recording Studio
10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Threshold of Hearing
0
SOURCE: ESA
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 3.3 -1
Effects of Noise on People
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
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.
Effects of Noise on Horses
Horses have binaural hearing, which means that they can hear sounds from both ears
concurrently. The size and shape of a horse ear allows the horse to detect a sound more readily
and from different areas in the surrounding environment than humans (Heffner, 2000). Horse ears
rotate 180 degrees and generally face the direction the animal is looking. With binaural hearing,
they can focus one eye and ear on the rider (for example) and one eye and ear on something else
(FHWA, 2007). When they hear something, horses want to see the cause (FHWA, 2007).
However, binaural hearing is not precise; many times horses are not able to accurately detect the
location of sounds in the environment (Heffner, 2000). This inability to accurately pinpoint a
sound in the environment may cause a horse to become frightened or startled when certain or
unidentifiable sounds are produced (Heffner, 2000).
In addition, horses can hear frequencies from a wide range of 55 to 33,500 hertz (Hz), while
humans hear frequency range is lower and smaller from approximately 30 to 19,000 Hz (Blazer,
2012). Because of the high frequency range, horses may be more sensitive to higher - pitched
sounds than humans. The horse's natural response and survival instinct to sudden or
unidentifiable sounds in the environment, or when a particular sound is perceived to be a threat, is
to flee in the opposite direction of the sound (Heffner, 2000).
Horses have been observed for reactions to aircraft (USAF, 2000), which show a varied response
to low- altitude aircraft overflights. Some horses startle at a sudden onset of aircraft noise and
gallop or kick when surprised by a low altitude aircraft overflight, but sometimes no reaction
occurs. Although all horses have the same basic instincts, the reaction to environmental noise for
each individual horse depends on its training, life experience, and personality (Heffner, 2000).
The response varies with the horse, the rider, the terrain, and other conditions (USAF, 2000).
Horses can become gradually conditioned to various noises over time (Heffner, 2000). The
U.S. Air Force has evidence that horses adapt to flyovers over a month's time (USAF, 2000).
Also, horses ridden in more developed environments become accustomed to unsettling noises
after repeated exposure to them (FHWA, 2007). Vehicles backfiring, gunfire, firecrackers, sirens,
helicopters, public address systems, hot air balloons, trains, marching bands, mechanical
equipment, echoes, and bridge or tunnel sounds are tolerated by horses that are accustomed to
them. Likewise, horses that spend time in rural areas get used to noises, such as the sounds of
farm animals and farming activities (FHWA, 2007).
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
Temewla Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3 -4 ESN I13o052
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Seltirl Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
(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 as traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a
rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from
the reference measurement (Caltrans, 1998).
Existing Conditions
Sensitive Receptors
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 proposed project is located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, south of De Portola
Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The nearest sensitive receptors are
residences at approximately 305 feet away from the hospital site and a church that is over 1,000
feet away. The land uses in the vicinity of the hospital include:
• Single- family residences and an equestrian trail to the north and northwest;
• Single- family residences and commercial properties to the southwest and southeast,
beyond Temecula Parkway;
• Professional medical offices to the west; and
• Multi - family residential, commercial, medical office and a flood control channel to the
east.
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Table 3.3 -1 provides the ambient noise levels that were identified by noise monitoring at five
sensitive noise locations that are shown in Figure 3.3 -2.
TABLE 3.3 -1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Location
Location Description
Measurement
Measured Average
AMBIENT
Number
period
Noise Level, dB(A)
CNEL, dB
1 30390 De Portola Road
24 hours
45.1 -61.2
59.6
2 30955 De Portola Road
24 hours
45.8 -63.2
58.9
3 31775 De Portola Road
24 hours
50.1 -61.7
63.5
On project site, at offset of
4 proposed five -story bed tower
20 minutes
57.9
N/A
5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent
to Highway 79)
24 hours
64.2 -76.5
78.7
NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014.
All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute S1.4 -1971.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Project
3.3 -5
ESA /130652
orak Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
November 2014
fl:4�.
Site 2
Site 3
v'
,,♦ PROJECT
.a� t
` SITE
•• Site 4.
Site
:'�,amec ,.. is < F' a•` ` site 5
79
+ i
F
Y +M6 A
oft
i ^1
q ..ice rn,
f
J
` tr
l �
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA
wo I
s
R,
r:
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 3.3 -2
Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations
Ambient Noise
• �.'�
Monitoring Locations
j
t
CCCC y��
0 1000
.,
Feet
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 3.3 -2
Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
3.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations (23 CFR 772), noise abatement
must be considered for hospital sites, these criteria indicate that the Equivalent Continuous Noise
Level (Leq) during the noisiest one -hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dBA at exterior
areas or 52 dBA within the interior of a hospital or medical building.
In addition, FAA guidelines Part 150 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
provide that all land uses are compatible with aircraft noise at exposure levels below 65 dB
CNEL (or Ldn). It is important to note that no compatibility criteria have been established for A
weighted single event noise metrics. Single event noise metrics are considered supplemental
metrics to help describe the CNEL environment and the associated noise effects.
California Public Utilities Code
The California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a) states that emergency aircraft
flightsfor medical purposes by law enforcement, firefighting, military, or otherpersons who
provide emergency flights for medical proposes are exempt fr-orn local ordinances adopted by a
city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, that restrict flight departures
and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, that restrict the departure or arrival of
aircraft based upon the aircraft's noise level, or that restrict the operation of certain types of
aircraft (emphasis added to project related code text). Pursuant to this, the City cannot restrict
helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes.
California Code of Regulations, Title 21
California Airport Noise Standards, Subchapter 6 — Noise Standards, Article 1- General,
Sections 5001 through 5006 provides noise standards governing the operation of aircraft and
aircraft engines. Section 5006 defines the level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person
residing in the vicinity of an airport as a CNEL value of 65 dB for purposes of these regulations.
This criterion level has been chosen for reasonable persons residing in urban residential areas
where houses are of typical California construction and may have windows partially open. It has
been selected with reference to speech, sleep and community reaction. As in the federal criteria,
no compatibility criteria have been established for A- weighted single event noise metrics such as
SENEL or Lmax.
California Department of Health Services Noise Standards
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has established guidelines for evaluating
the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. These
guidelines for land use and noise exposure compatibility are shown in Table 3.3 -2. In addition,
Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires each county and city in the state to
prepare and adopt a comprehensive long -range general plan for its physical development, with
Section 65302(g) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element
must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise
Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3 -7 ESA 11311652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
TABLE 3.3 -2
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (LON OR CNEL)
Land Use
Normally
Acceptablea
Conditionally
Acceptableb
Normally
Unacceptablec
Clearly
Unacceptabled
Single- family, Duplex, Mobile Homes
50-60
55-70
70-75
above 75
Multi - Family Homes
50-65
60-70
70-75
above 75
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
50-70
60-70
70-80
above 80
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Transient Lodging — Motels, Hotels
50-65
60-70
70-80
above 75
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
- --
50-70
--
above 70
Amphitheaters
Sports Arena,
- --
50-75
--
above 75
Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
50-70
- --
67-75
above 75
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
50-75
- --
70-80
above 80
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business and
Professional Commercial
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture
50-70 67-77 above 75 - --
50-75 70-80 above 75 - --
a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal
conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
b Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows
and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does
proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the
design.
d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
SOURCE: OPR, 2003.
The State of Califomia also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public
roads. For heavy trucks, the state pass -by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB.
The state pass -by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle
rating) is also 80 dBA at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through
controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local
law enforcement officials.
The state has also 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 Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of
45 dBA Ldp 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 proposed in
areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn. Tide 24 standards are typically enforced by
local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hel'atop Project 3.3 -8 ESA 1 130652
Dreft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
City of Temecula General Plan — Noise Element
The City's noise standards are correlated with land use zoning classifications in order to maintain
identified ambient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the
ambient noise levels within a specified zone. The City's primary goal with regard to community
noise is to minimize the exposure of residents to unhealthful or excessive noise levels to the
extent possible. To this end, the Noise Element establishes noise /land use compatibility
guidelines based on cumulative noise criteria for outdoor noise. These guidelines are based, in
part, on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the DFIS for use in
assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. The City's
noise /land use compatibility guidelines are shown in Table 3.3 -3.
TABLE 3.3.3
CITY OF TEMECULA NOISEILAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX
Land Use
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptablea Acceptableb Unacceptablec Unacceptabled
Residentiale
50-60
60-70
70-75
above 75
Transient Lodging — Motel, Hotel
50-60
60-70
70-80
above 80
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
50-60
60-70
70-80
above 80
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Agriculture
50-70
70-80 above 80 - --
Agriculture
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphilhealersf
---
50-70
- --
above 70
Sports Arena,
Outdoor Spectator Sportsf
50-75
--
above 75
Playgrounds, Parks
50-70
- -- 70-75 above 75
Golf Course, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
50-70
- -- 70-80 above 80
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial, and Professional
50-65
65-75 above 75 - --
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture
50-70
70-80 above 80 - --
Agriculture
above 50
a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use Is satisfactory based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
b Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows
and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If it does proceed, a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
J Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
e Regarding aircraft - related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL.
f No normally acceptable condition is defined for these uses. Noise studies are required prior to approval.
SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, Noise Element, 2005.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3 -9 ESA / 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
In accordance with the Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, a noise exposure of
up to 60 dB Ldn or CNEL exposure is considered to be the most desirable target for the exterior of
noise- sensitive land uses or at sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, churches, libraries,
hospitals, hotels, motels, etc. It is also recognized that such a level may not always be possible in
areas of substantial traffic noise intrusion. In addition, all new residential development in the City
would be required to comply with Title 24 standards of the State Health and Safety Code. These
standards establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that
sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or CNEL
or less.
The City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element contains various goals and policies to address
citywide noise issues. The following are relevant to the proposed project:
Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors.
Policy 1.1 Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless
measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable
levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise
generators but require sound — appropriate interior working environment.
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.
Policy 1.3 Use information from the noise contour map in the General Plan in the
development review process to prevent location of sensitive land uses near major
stationary noise sources.
Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses.
Policy 2.1 Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and impacting
adjacent land uses.
Policy 2.2 Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment.
Policy 2.3 Require that mixed -use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise
and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas.
Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use
planning.
Policy 3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards.
Policy 3.3 Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a means to
minimize noise impacts.
Policy 3.4 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and require
mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval.
Temecula valley Hospital Helislop Project 3.3 -10 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitiqation Measures
Goal 4 Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources.
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.
Policy 4.2 Ensure the effective enforcement of city, state and federal noise impacts from
vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
Policy 4.3 Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads to reduce noise impacts from
vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
City of Temecula Municipal Code
Section 9.20 of the Temecula Municipal Code establishes citywide standards to regulate noise.
The following sections from Section 9.20 are relevant to the proposed project.
9.20.030 Exemptions
Sound emanating from the following sources is exempt:
E. Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not
limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This
exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by
such personnel, whether stationary or mobile.
J. Safety, warning and alarm devices, including, but not limited to, house and car alarms,
and other warning devices that are designed to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare.
9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards
No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes
the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set
forth in Table 3.3 -4.
9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards
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 7:00 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. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt
projects from the provisions of this chapter.
9.20.070 Exceptions
Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in Sections 9.20.040 (general sound
standards) or 9.20.060 (special sound sources standards) and may be characterized as
construction- related or single event exceptions.
Temeala Valley Hospital Helotop Project 3.3 -11 ESA 1 130652
Daft supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts. and Mitigation Measures
TABLE 3.3.4
CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE LAND USE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
Property Receiving Noise
Maximum Noise Level (dBA)
Type of Use Land Use Designation
Interior
Exterior
Residential Hillside
Rural
Very Low
45
65
Low
Low Medium
Medium
45
65/70'
High
45
70'
Commercial and Office Neighborhood
Community
—
70
Highway Tourist
Service
Professional Office
50
70
Light Industrial Industrial Park
55
75
Public /Institutional Schools
50
65
All others
50
70
Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture
—
70
Open Space
—
70/65'
' Maximum e,,tenor noise levels up to 70 dBA are allowed for multiple - family housing.
' Where quiet is a basis required for the lard use.
SOURCE: City of Temecula Municipal Code 9.20.040.
An application for a construction- related exception shall be made on a minor exception form. The
form shall be submitted in writing at least three working days (seventy -two hours) in advance of
the scheduled and permitted activity and shall be accompanied by the appropriate inspection
fee(s). The application is subject to approval by the city manager or designated representative. No
public hearing is required.
3.3.3 Impact Assessment
Methodology
Integrated Noise Model
The Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 7.0d, has been used to quantify helicopter noise
exposure in the vicinity of the interim and future helistop locations. The IN is the FAA -
approved noise model for quantifying fixed -wing and rotorcraft noise. The model input requires
information specific to each helistop including the total number of helicopter operations, the
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellenic Project 3.3 -12 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
flight paths used to access the helistop, the specific helicopter types, and the time of day at which
the operations would occur.
The INM works by defining a network of grid points at ground level. It then selects the shortest
distance from each grid point to each flight track and computes the noise exposure generated by
each helicopter (or aircraft) operation, along each flight track. Corrections are applied for
atmospheric acoustical attenuation, acoustical shielding of the engines by the helicopter, and
speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each operation are then summed at each grid
location. The cumulative noise exposure levels at all grid points are then used to develop CNEL
contours for selected values (e.g., 55, 60, and 65 dB CNEL). Using the results of the grid point
analysis, noise contours of equal noise exposure are then plotted. The INM includes the ability to
model the effects of changes in ground elevations (terrain), but does not include the ability to
account for shielding or reflectivity of noise from buildings or other structures.
Cumulative Noise Metrics
Cumulative noise metrics have been developed to assess community response to noise. They are
useful because these scales attempt to include the loudness of the noise, the duration of the noise,
the total number of noise events, and the time of day these events occur into one single number
rating scale.
• Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations specifies the use of CNEL for
quantifying cumulative aircraft noise exposure. CNEL is the 24 -hour average sound level
in decibels with an additional weighting placed on evening (7:00:00 pm — 9:59:59 pm)
and nighttime (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 am) operations to account for the increased
sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. CNEL metric and the evening
and nighttime weightings are described in detail in the "Time of Day" section below.
The specific data used to model the CNEL contours is described in the following sections.
Helicopter Operations and Fleet
Based on data provided by Heliplanners (the heliport architect), it is anticipated that two local
EMS helicopter operators, Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services, would utilize the
helistop to transport patients an average of eight times per month over a twelve month period.
This would total approximately 96 flights or 192 operations per year (one flight equals two
operations: an arrival and a departure). Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations
and Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 require that the CNEL contours be based on the annual -
average day operations over a 365 -day period. This equals approximately 0.526 operations per
annual - average day. The proposed changes to the helistop (i.e., the decommissioning of the
interim helistop and operation of permanent helistop) would not result in an increase in the
number of helicopters utilizing the helistop. Thus, the same numbers of operations were used to
calculate the noise exposure for both the interim and permanent helistop locations.
The type of helicopter used by Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services that would utilize
the interim and permanent helistops is the Airbus EC -135, which is commonly used for medical
air transport, and currently does not have a noise profile in the INM. However, the EC 130 is a
Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Proiect 3.3 -13 ESA 1130652
Drafi Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
similar helicopter and generates similar noise. Both helicopter models have a Fenestron tail rotor,
which has an array of ten blades that are arranged asymmetrically and are spaced at different
intervals, which reduces a main generator of helicopter noise. Therefore, use of the EC -130 is an
appropriate substitute for the EC 135, and was used to model noise from project operations. A
detailed breakdown of the annual- average day operations for the interim and future helistop
locations is included in Table 3.3 -5.
TABLE 3.3 -5
ANNUAL - AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS
Daytime Evening Nighttime
INM Helicopter Type Helicopter Type Operations Operations Operations Total
EC 130 EC 135 0.421 0.053 0.053 0.526
SOURCE: Heliplanners, ESAAirpons Analysis, 2014
Time of Day
As noted previously, the separation of helicopter operations into daytime (7:00:00 am to 6:59:59
pm), evening (7:00:00 pm to 9:59:59 pm), and nighttime (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 am) is important
because the INM includes an additional weighting during the evening and nighttime hours to
account for the increased sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. Evening
operations are weighted as three daytime operations and nighttime operations are weighted as ten
daytime operations. This results in a 4.77 and 10- decibel penalty for each event during these
periods, respectively. Based on the annual average of approximately 192 operations per year and
the average time of day those operations occurred, as provided in Table 3.3 -5, Table 3.3 -6
estimates the expected frequency that helicopter operations would occur at the project site at the
previously defined times of day.
TABLE 3.3.6
HELICOPTER OPERATION TIMES OF DAY (CNEL)
Daytime Evening Nighttime
INM Helicopter (7:00:00 am- 6:59:59 (7:00:00 pm- 9:59:59 (10:00:00 pm- 6:59:59
Type pm) pm) am) Total
EC 130 80.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0%
SOURCE: Heliplanners, 2013
Flight Corridors
The flight corridors used to access the helistops are an important factor in determining the
geographic distribution of noise on the ground. Flight corridors for helicopter operations were
modeled for the proposed north -Flow and south -Flow configurations for both the interim and
permanent conditions. Flight corridor use percentages were derived from information provided by
Fleliplanners, the heliport architect. Based on this data, use percentages were developed for north -
flow and south -Flow operations. Using this information, four primary arrival and departure
Tommie Valley Hospilal Hellstop Proles 3.3 -14 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplememal Enrmnmenlal Impact ReWd November 2014
3. Environmental Settinq, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
corridors were developed for the interim condition. When operating in a north flow configuration,
arrivals would fly a true heading of 213 degrees to the interim helistop, while departures would
fly a true heading of 33 degrees. Figure 3.3 -3 depicts the interim helistop north -flow flight
corridors. When operating in a south -flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 48
degrees to the interim helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 228 degrees.
Figure 3.3 -4 depicts the interim helistop south -flow flight corridors.
Future operations were modeled to and from the future permanent helistop location. When
operating in a north -flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 218 degrees to the
permanent helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 38 degrees. Figure 3.3 -5 depicts
the permanent helistop north -flow flight corridors. When operating in a south -flow configuration,
arrivals would fly a true heading of 49 degrees to the permanent helistop, while departures would
fly a true heading of 229 degrees. Figure 3.3 -6 depicts the permanent helistop south -flow flight
corridors. Flight corridor use percentages have been assigned according to the data received from
Heliplanners, the heliport architect, and are shown in Tables 3.3 -7 and 3.3 -8.
TABLE 3.3 -7
EC 135 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES - INTERIM CONDITION
Departures
Arrivals
Corridor Day Evening
Night Corridor
Day
Evening
Night
DNEP 10.0% 10.0%
10.0% ANEP
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
DSWP 90.0% 90.0%
90.0% ASWP
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
DNEP = Departure Northeast Point -track
DSWP = Departure Southwest Point -track
ANEP = Arrival Northeast Point -track
ASWP = Arrival Southwest Point -track
SOURCE: Heliplanners, 2013
TABLE 3.3 -8
EC 135 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES -
FUTURE CONDITION
Departures
Arrivals
Corridor Day Evening
Night Corridor
Day
Evening
Night
DNEP 10.0% 10.0%
10.0% ANEP
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
DSWP 90.0% 90.0%
90.0% ASWP
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
DNEP = Departure Northeast Point -track
DSWP = Departure Southwest Point -track
ANEP = Arrival Northeast Point -track
ASWP = Arrival Southwest Point -track
SOURCE: Heliplanners, 2013
Temecula vaAey Hospial Hellstop Project
3.3 -15
ESA /130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
November 2014
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.Od; USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 3.3 -3
Interim Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors
/ a,
I �t4
A$
AI OL
YI
. r
. -oil
,J
.I'f t�
i C
L-Mr—OV. A
. -. Ji • ��y "i:`� ; • / • • PROJECT
' .{r' ` • .>ri.�IM~ SITE
. Interim Helistop
.• ,� ~' .
t
_
IL`•
NT'
Flight Corridors
M Arrivals
_ Departures
It
0 1000
Feet
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
SOURCE: ESA: INM 7.0d: USDA Figure 3.3 -4
Interim Helistop - South -Flow Flight Corridors
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.Od; USDA Figure 3.3 -5
Permanent Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Figure 3.3 -6
Permanent Helistop — South -Flow Flight Corridors
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could have a potentially
significant impact with respect to noise if it would:
• Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
• Expose persons to or generate excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise
levels.
• Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
• Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project.
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
• For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
As determined in the NOP /Initial Study (Appendix A), implementation of the proposed project
would not result in significant impacts related to groundbome vibration and groundbome noise,
or noise impacts related to a public airport. Therefore, no further analysis of these topics is
included in the EIR.
Temporary Construction Noise
Construction of the approved hospital facility is ongoing as the hospital is being developed in
phases and noise related impacts associated with construction activities from development of the
helipad have been previously analyzed in the previous environmental documents prepared for the
Temecula Valley Hospital (which are described in Section 1, Introduction of this SEIR and
incorporated by reference). Construction of the proposed storage building would involve similar
construction activities as would occur during construction of the other hospital facilities that were
analyzed in the previous environmental analyses, including grading, construction, and paving.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed storage building are residential uses located over
500 feet to the west. As concluded in the 2008 FSEIR, construction activities associated with
development of the proposed storage building can be expected to exceed the accepted exterior
ambient noise level of 70 dB (for medium- and high- density residential uses) by more than 3 dB
at the nearest sensitive receptors (as summarized in Table 3.2 -5 of the 2008 FSEIR).
Construction of the proposed helipad locations and storage building would utilize the same types
of equipment that has been (and would continue to be) used to construct the other hospital
facilities. Development of the relocated interim helistop and new storage building would not
increase temporary construction activity noise levels beyond those generated by construction of
the other hospital facilities, which were previously analyzed in the approved 2008 FSEIR and
Temecula Valley Hoapiul Helistop Project 3.3 -20 ESA / 1] 62
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Novem"r 2014
3. Environmemal setting. Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
were found to be significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation
measures. Hence, there would be no substantial increase in construction noise impacts as a result
of implementation of the proposed project. The analysis, findings, and mitigation and noise
abatement measures from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into
this SEI R and would apply to construction of the helipad and proposed storage building.
Exceedance of Noise Standards CNEL Standards
The interim helistop is located at ground level on the western side of the hospital property at an
elevation of 1,060 feet MSL. The permanent helistop is planned to be located on the roof of a
future second hospital tower at an elevation of 1,135 feet MSL. Using the INM, the 55 -65 dB
CNEL contours have been prepared for the interim and permanent helistop locations and are
shown on Figures 3.3 -7 and 3.3 -8, respectively.) The CNEL contours shown on Figures 3.3 -7
and 3.3 -8 depict noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise
exposure resulting from non - aircraft sources. The interim 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses
approximately 2.6 acres and the future 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 3.2
acres. The CNEL contours for the permanent helistop location are larger than the interim helistop
location because the increased elevation reduces the effect of ground attenuation that occurs with
helicopter operations close to the ground. The reduced ground attenuation allows the sound to
propagate further than the interim helipad at ground level.
The City of Temecula General Plan criteria sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB
CNEL for low- and medium - intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi- family housing. The
General Plan uses a CNEL standard that averages noise over 24- hours. The proposed storage
building would be used to store non- hazardous materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock"
(extra materials and supplies kept on -hand for maintenance and repair of hospital facilities), for
the hospital, and linens. The storage building would not utilize any machinery or equipment,
except for HVAC equipment that is similar to those used on other hospital buildings. As a result,
operation of the proposed storage building would not generate noise in excess of the City's
General Plan criteria.
As shown in Figures 3.3 -7 and 3.3 -8, the 60 dB CNEL contours resulting from the helicopter
flights are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, the average noise increase
(CNEL) resulting from the helistop would not result in a significant noise impact as defined by
the City of Temecula's General Plan.
Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act also uses CNEL to identify noise impacts, and
established that areas exposed to aircraft noise levels less than 65 dB CNEL are considered
compatible with residential uses. As noted above, the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting
from the proposed project shown in Figures 3.3 -7 and 3.3 -8 are completely contained on the
hospital campus. Therefore, no residential areas would experience a significant noise impact from
the proposed helistop facilities as defined by Title 21 of the State Aeronautics Act.
Due to their small size (i.e., less than 0.0 acres), the 70 and 75 dB CNEL contours were omitted from Figures 3.3 -7
and 3.3 -8.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helivop Project 3.3 -21 ESA 1130652
Dr4X supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.Otl; City of Temecula; USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 3.3 -7
Interim Helistop - CNEL Contours
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City otTemecula; USDA Figure 3.3 -8
Permanent Helistop - CNEL Contours
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts. and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
The Riverside County ALUCP criteria for noise defines 60 dB CNEL as the maximum allowable
CNEL for new residential land uses in the vicinity of airports or helistops. For other noise
sensitive land uses including hotels, places of worship, meeting halls, office buildings, etc., the
Riverside County ALUCP defines 65 dB CNEL as the maximum allowable noise exposure level.
The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from use of the proposed helistops are completely
contained within the hospital campus. As a result, no residential areas or other sensitive uses
would experience a significant noise impact as defined by the Riverside County ALUCP.
Short-Term Noise Standards
Table 3.3 -9 shows the single -event noise at nearby land uses that would be generated as
helicopters arrive and depart the interim helistop. The locations listed in Table 3.3 -9 are shown in
Figure 3.3 -9.
TABLE 3.3 -9
SINGLE -EVENT NOISE LEVELS OF THE INTERIM HELISTOP AT NEARBY USES
WEST FLOW EASTFLOW
(Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions)
Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter
Site Site Description/ Ambient Departure Arrival Departure Arrival
Number Address CNEL, dB Lmax, dBA Lmax, dBA Lmax, dBA Lmax, dBA
1 30390 De Portola Road 59.6 60.9 73.3 52.0 65.6
2 30955 De Portola Road 58.9 73.3 69.2 85.5 74.5
adjacent to portion of
Equestrian Trail
3 31775 De Portola Road 63.5 59.6 58.9 77.8 59.6
5 31602 Calee Los Padres 78.7 73.2 79.7 72.8 75.6
(adjacent to Highway 79)
6 Direct Overnight of - -- 76.3 71.9 100.8 77.6
Equestrian Trail
NOTES: For this analysis, sites slightly differ from those shown in Table3.3 -1 because site Number 4 is the hospital site, and is not listed
because it would be shielded from helicopter noise from existing and planned structures. Site Number 6 was added to demonstrate the
anticipated noise levels of helicopter overflight of the equestrian trail.
SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014.
The duration of the maximum single -event noise listed in Table 3.3 -9 would be very limited
occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights) as the
helicopter is flying over the locations shown in Figure 3.3 -9. The noise generated by helicopter
flights to and from the interim helistop would result in a maximum noise level of up to 79.7
Lmax, dBA under prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital).
Under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise could expose areas to maximum
noise levels of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA.
Helicopter noise would be greater from use of the interim site at ground level, than the future
rooftop location where helicopters would be higher and farther from receptors. Under both
prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter noise that would occur approximately eight
times per month would exceed the exterior noise limited identified in the City's Noise Ordinance.
Temecula valley Hospital Hellstop Prgecr 3.3 -24 ESA t 130654
Oraft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
. K
y
1 •i- TT _yrr .-�
tee • .I � •R • 'v% . °Wt"�� . �,wi:,
c�
'
Qb h l
0
` I
-c
Srte2 � SIte1 'y
I
♦ '� -1' $f[CB PROJECT
F'
• 1 SITE
Slte•1 • t
1a pKwY ..i" �-
SeR` ., €� ♦',�._.- Sites
19
j � ♦
-
. 0 Single -Event Noise
Analysis Locations
0 1000
Feet
Air
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
SOURCE. ESA: INM 7.00: USDA
NOTE: Latitude and longitude coordinates for Figure 3.3 -9
Site 04 were unavailable and therefore omitted Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations
from the single event noise analysis.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
The City's Noise Ordinance (Section 9.20.040) states that noise cannot be generated that would
result in the exterior sound level on single family residential land uses to exceed 65 dB, and 75
dB for multi - family residential. However, the medical helicopter noise is exempt from the City's
Municipal Code standards (per Code Section 9.20.030). In addition, Flights for medical purposes
are exempt from local ordinances and cannot be restricted due to noise (PUC Section 21662.4.
(a)). However, because noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop
would result in maximum noise levels of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA under Santa Ana conditions,
which is substantially higher than the noise levels allowed near residential land uses, Therefore,
impacts related to noise levels from helicopter overflights would be significant and unavoidable.
To reduce the helicopter noise impacts, Mitigation Measure NOI -1 has been included to provide
signage at each end of the horse trail to notice riders of the helistop location and operation. This
measure would provide notice; however, it would not reduce the substantial noise levels
generated from helicopter overflight. As described above, aircraft flights for medical purposes
cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4.
Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable noise impact related to helicopter
overflights.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable
Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise is measured in CNEL, which averages noise over 24- hours. As described above,
the proposed storage building would be used for storage of non - hazardous materials such as
disaster supplies, "attic stock" for the hospital, and linens and would not utilize any machinery or
equipment, except for HVAC equipment, which is similar to the equipment used for the other
hospital buildings. In addition, the storage building would not require or result in additional
traffic trips; and traffic related ambient increases in noise from additional vehicles trips would not
occur. Therefore, operation of the proposed storage building would not result in a substantial
increase in ambient noise levels.
For construction of new or expanded airports or heliports in locations having existing ambient
noise exposure levels less than 60 dB CNEL, the Riverside County ALUCP identifies significant
impacts resulting from the proposed action using three criteria: for locations having an existing
ambient noise level of 55 dB CNEL or less, an increase of 5 dB or more is deemed significant;
for locations having an existing ambient noise level between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, an increase of
3 dB or more is deemed significant; and for locations having an existing ambient noise level of
more than 60 dB CNEL, an increase of 1.5 dB or more is deemed significant. As shown in Table
3.3 -I, all of the existing ambient noise locations have existing ambient noise levels of greater
than 55 dB CNEL and two of the locations (Sites 3 and 5) have ambient noise above 60 dB
CNEL.
The INM was used to calculate the helicopter - generated CNEL at each of the measurement
locations. The measured and ambient CNEL values were then compared to determine if these
locations would experience an increase in CNEL of 3 dB or more at Sites 1 and 3, and 1.5 dB or
more at Sites 2 and 5. As shown in Tables 3.3 -10 and 3.3 -11, Sites I and 2 did not experience an
Temecula Valley Hospial Nelatop Protect 3.3 -26 ESA l 130652
Draft supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
increase of 3 dB, nor did Sites 3 and 5 experience an increase of 1.5 dB from the interim or
permanent helistop operation. Therefore, no residential areas would experience a significant
increase in noise as defined by Section 5.1.2 of the Riverside County ALUCP; and the project
would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
TABLE 3.3.10
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR
THE INTERIM CONDITION
Difference
Between
Combined
Ambient and
Ambient and
Combined
Site
Site Description/
Measurement
AMBIENT
Helicopter
Helicopter
Helicopter
Number
Address
Period
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
1
30390 De Portola Road
24 hours
59,6
26.9
59.6
0.0
2
30955 De Portola Road
24 hours
58,9
46.6
59.1
+0.2
3
31775 De Portola Road
24 hours
63.5
38.7
615
+0.1
4
On project site, at offset
20 minutes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
of proposed five -story
bed tower
5
31602 Calle Los Padres
24 hours
78.7
47.2
78.7
0.0
(adjacent to Highway 79)
TABLE 3.3 -11
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT
NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR
THE PERMANENT
CONDITION
Difference
Combined
Between
Ambientand
Ambientand
Site
Site Description/
Measureme
AMBIENT
Helicopter
Helicopter
Helicopter
Number
Address
nt Period
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
1
30390 De Portola Road
24 hours
59.6
23.9
59.6
0.0
2
30955 De Portola Road
24 hours
58.9
43.9
59.0
+0.1
3
31775 De Portola Road
24 hours
63.5
43.7
63.5
0.0
4
On project site, at offset
20 minutes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
of proposed five -story bed
tower
5
31602 Calle Los Padres
24 hours
78.7
41.2
78.7
0.0
( adjacent to Highway 79)
NOTES:
Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates
between June 19
and 26. 2014.
All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) S1 4 -1971.
SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014.
Temecula Valley Hmptal Hellstop Project
3.3 -27
ESA / 130652
Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
NovemOer 2014
3. Environmental Setting. Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise
Levels
As described previously, the duration of maximum helicopter noise would be limited and occur as
helicopters arrive and depart the helistop, which would occur approximately eight times a month
(four departures and four arrival flights). Even though limited, the periodic noise generated by
helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop would result in a substantial increase in short-
term noise events at Sites 1 and 2 during overflight under prevailing wind conditions (for a
majority of flights to and from the hospital). Under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter
overflight noise could expose areas to maximum noise levels of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA during
overflight. Both under prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions, this noise would be
substantially louder than existing ambient noise levels, and occur approximately eight times a
month.
An equestrian trail is located adjacent to the hospital to the north and northwest; and as described
some horses startle and become frightened at a sudden unidentified noise, such as the onset of
aircraft noise because this noise is abrupt and substantially louder than ambient noise levels.
Hence, horses being ridden along the equestrian trail that bounds the hospital site to the north
could startle and a safety hazard at the equestrian trail may occur. Conversely, horses that are
accustomed to various urban noises may not react, and horses that reside locally are generally
anticipated to adjust to the noise after repeated exposure.
To reduce the helicopter related safety hazard to the equestrian trail, Mitigation Measure N0I -1
has been included to provide signage at each end of the horse trail to notice riders of the helistop
location and operation. This measure would reduce noise impacts related to activity on the
equestrian trail to less than significant; however, it would not reduce the limited, but substantial
noise levels generated from helicopter overflight.
Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a), which states
that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight
departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As a
result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise.
Therefore, impacts related to substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels from
helicopter overflights would be significant and unavoidable.
Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable
Mitigation Measures
NO[-1: Prior to operation of the interim helistop, the "Temecula Valley Hospital will develop and
install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital
site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign
will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley
Temecula valley Hospital Helistop project 3.3 -28 ESA 1180652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Noise
Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all
related costs.
3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the proposed project in combination with
ambient growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the proposed project. As
noise is a localized phenomenon and drastically reduces in magnitude as distance from the source
increases, only projects and ambient growth in the nearby area could combine with the proposed
project to result in cumulative noise impacts. Similarly, the geographic area associated with
cumulative construction noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by helistop
noise associated with the proposed project and the locations of the identified cumulative projects.
None of the projects listed in Table 2 -1 in Chapter 2, Project Description, that are near the project
site would involve helistop locations, any other aviation - related uses. Nearby cumulative projects
involve commercial, office, and residential development that would not result in substantial noise
generation. Furthermore, there are no proposed uses that would generate noise, such that it would
combine with noise from helicopter flights to result in a significant cumulative impact.
Although the helicopter overflight noise would be substantially louder than existing ambient
noise levels, it would be limited to occurring at noise receptors approximately eight times a
month. As described in the 2008 Final SEIR, ambulance sirens generate maximum noise levels of
about 94 to 117.5 dBA. However, it is not anticipated that helicopter activity and ambulance
sirens would occur at the same time within the same geographic area, and cumulative noise
impacts are not anticipated.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3 -29 ESA I IW662
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
CHAPTER 4
Project Alternatives
This chapter summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the
original FIR, SEIR and evaluates an alternative helistop site and the no project alternative.
4.1 Introduction
This chapter addresses alternatives to the proposed project and describes the rationale for their
evaluation in the SEIR, the environmental impacts associated with each alternative, and compares
the relative impacts of each alternative to those of the proposed project. In addition, the ability of
each alternative to meet the project objectives is described.
CEQA requires that an FIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). According to CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be those that
would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more
significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The "range of alternatives"
is governed by the "rule of reason," which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives
necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful
public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)).
CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered, Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that
among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability;
economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and
regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the proponent can reasonably
acquire, control or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore, an FIR need not
consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is
remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The alternatives
addressed in this SEIR were identified in consideration of one or more of the following factors:
• The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified
significant environmental effects of the proposed project;
• The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed
project;
• The feasibility of the alternative;
• The requirement of the CEQA Guidelines to consider a "no project" alternative; and to
identify an "environmentally superior" alternative in addition to the no project alternative
(Section 15126.6(e)).
Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Proleat 4-1 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
4. Project Alternatives
Pursuant to CEQA, the No Project Alternative shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the
notice of preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved based on current plans (Section
15126.6(e)(3)(c)).
4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed
The following project alternatives were examined in the Original Draft FIR dated January 2006:
Alternative l: 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.
The SEIR that was prepared in January 2008 examined New Alternative 7: Former Temecula
Education Center Alternative. However, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, remained
as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
4.3 Project Objectives
The primary objectives of the hospital project are as follows.
City Objectives
The City's objectives for the proposed hospital project and the project area are to:
• Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of
Temecula;
• Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices,
cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient
state -of -the -art facility;
• Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services;
• Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify
Temecula's employment base;
• Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in
terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the
location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental
conditions; and
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Protect 4-2 ESA/13W52
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
Altemativers
• Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and
vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses.
Applicant Objectives
The objectives of UHS for the proposed hospital 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
hospital for medical procedures.
Proposed Project
The proposed relocation of the approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project
objectives listed above. Specifically, the proposed heliport site would provide for superior, easily
accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that
help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital
doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other regional
hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop site would further the
project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light,
and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses.
The proposed storage building is an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily
operations of the hospital. It is designed to be architecturally consistent with the main hospital
building and would be consistent with project objectives related to providing compatible
development between the project site and surrounding uses.
4.4 No Project Alternative
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR shall:
..discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice ofpreparation is
published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the
environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be
reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable fidure if the project were
not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastnicture and community services."
The No Project Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted, and
that the proposed storage building would not be developed and that the approved helistop site would
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4 -3 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
Altematives
be developed. The approved helistop includes a 60 -foot by 60 -foot helistop that is located at
approximately 14.5 feet above grade near the northeast comer of the hospital, approximately 100
feet from the eastern property line (shown in Figure 2 -3, Approved Helistop Site). The helipad in
this location would need to be elevated to meet airspace obstruction clearance criteria for vehicles on
the adjacent driveways. This alternative would include the original flight path that would travel both
to and from the helipad over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a
southeasterly direction (a true heading of 109 degrees / 096 degrees magnetic flight corridor), and a
second flight path (true heading of 285 degrees / 272 degrees magnetic, which was listed as a
condition in the FAA's airspace determination letter) that would travel both to and from the helipad
over the Los Ranchitos single - family residential areas north of the project site. These flight paths are
shown in Figures 4 -1 and 4 -2. As described in Section 2.4, Project Description, prevailing winds in
the project region is to the east, except during occasional Santa Ana wind conditions that blow
westward. As a result, helicopters would generally approach the approved helistop site from the east,
flying northwest bound into the wind to land at the helistop; and would also take off in a northwest
bound direction. During Santa Ana or westbound wind conditions, which occur occasionally,
helicopters would approach from the west flying southeast bound to land at the site, and take off also
in a southeastbound direction.
The No Project Alternative would also require installation of obstruction lights on the top of the
two -story Madera Vista apartment buildings as required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.
Environmental Analysis
Aesthetics
Like the interim helistop site for the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would require
installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations. The No Project Alternative would use red
obstruction lights on the adjacent apartment buildings that are photocell - controlled for dusk -to -dawn
operation. The Phase I hospital tower (that currently exists onsite) would have red obstruction lights,
one three- colored (green, white, and yellow) heliport beacon light, and one lighted windcone
installed to provide approaching and departing pilots with wind information. Other lighting would
include 12 green flush - mounted perimeter lights surrounding the TLOF, five green lead -in lights
aligned with the primary approach path from the northeast, and a 16 -foot tall lighted windcone.
Lighting under this alternative (perimeter lights, lead -in lights and local lighted windcone) would be
activated only for nighttime landings or takeoffs and is proposed in accordance with Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics standards.
However, the red obstruction lights that would be mounted on the Madera Vista apartments to the
east of the helistop would be additional lights that would not be installed by the proposed project.
The ability to install the off -site lighting on the roof of the apartment buildings is not under the
control of the applicant. This additional lighting would be outside of the project site and would be
red and visible to the occupants of the apartment buildings and adjacent residences. The other
lighting associated with helicopter takeoff /landing events would be within the hospital's grounds and
would largely be shielded by intervening landscaping. Because the red obstruction lights would be
located off -site at the Madera Vista apartment buildings under this alternative, this alternative would
result in greater lighting related impacts than the proposed project.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4 -4 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
r• � i7
w
{
Y Approved Hel top Do Po Iota Pd
r
a
v
�'• L:"" �„ x
PROJECT
• + e � SITE
-�iAj {
! a
'uSeJyj�`' At'�
^ P
,n
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA
a_ e
h'e
a
h
�ay/rp
EWA
Flight Corridors
- Arrivals
_ Departures
Aw
T
0 1000
Feet
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 4 -1
Approved Helistop - East -Flow Flight Corridors
•� .1 � ,/+ � V♦ ti ,may' >hl .
1 01
it j
•Approved HelistoP
„w
i
PR
�,N • •, ' � OJECT +
.�. ✓�., 0 •� SITE a
444 �..'•.• �W�, -�- \ ;: wi/�``, 4• �. -
racu\a
7s
ry �7 •rte♦
4 1y!\ n r' �� • �♦ �• ' .� /rV.
` # "' " ' � t1 Flight Corridors
j i tip. T' Arrivals
i _
_ tif:. . Departures
0 1000
ii
Feet
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.Od; USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 4 -2
Approved Helistop - West -Flow Flight Corridors
In addition, implementation of the flight path related to the proposed project would require (per
Caltrans Aeronautics) reducing the height of the large row of mature trees that are located
adjacent to the east of the project site, within an area under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The applicant does not have authority to trim these trees; but should these
trees be reduced, removed, or cut as a result of the heliport project, aesthetic impacts that are
greater than the proposed project (that would not result in tree trimming) would occur.
Hazards
The helipad site that would be developed under the No Project Alternative has undergone review
and approval by the FAA and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The reviews conducted by
these agencies evaluate the effects the helistop would have on the safety of persons or property on
the ground and objects that extend into the air. However, since the original approval of the
helistop, the FAA has issued new regulations and new residential uses have been constructed
within the flight path. The No Project Alternative would include a second flight path in order to
meet FAA safety recommendations related to prevailing wind conditions. In addition, because the
new residential uses are within the currently approved flight path, Caltrans Aeronautics Division
requires that red obstruction lights be added to the residential buildings. With implementation of
these required measures, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant
hazards impacts as the proposed project.
Noise
Construction Noise
As described in Section 3.3, Norse, construction of the proposed project would not substantially
change, and would not increase, construction noise impacts beyond those identified for the
hospital project by the previous CEQA documentation in 2006 EIR, 2008 SEIR, and 2011 SEIR
Addendum (described in Section 1.3 of this SEIR and incorporated by reference). Under the No
Project Alternative, the proposed helipad locations and storage building would not be
constructed; however, construction noise associated with the approved helipad and the phased
development of the other hospital facilities would continue. The approved and proposed
construction activities are within the same portions of the project site, just the locations of the
facilities have changed and an additional 5,000 square feet of building space would be developed.
The locations of development would have the same general distance to sensitive receptors, which
include the adjacent residential uses and the hospital itself. Therefore, impacts related to
construction noise under the No Project Alternative would be similar to those currently occurring
and proposed to occur by the proposed project.
CNEL Standards
As shown in Figures 4 -1 and 4 -2, the No Project Alternative would include flight paths directly
over residential uses that are adjacent to two sides of the hospital property and the planned
equestrian trail. Operations using the approved helistop flight paths were modeled (as was done
for the proposed project) and the 55 -65 dB CNEL contours prepared. As shown in Figure 4 -3, the
65 and 60 dB CNEL contours are contained within the project site and the 55 dB contour
encroaches onto residential land uses that are adjacent to the east of the project site. The CNEL
Temecula Valley Hospital Heletop Project 4-7 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SLIR . 130652
SOURCE: ESA: INM 7.Od; City of Temecula: USDA
NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure Figure 4 -3
from helicopter operations only and do not represent the Approved Helistop - CNEL Contours
roles exposure resulting from non - aircraft sources.
contours depict noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise
exposure resulting from non - aircraft sources.
The City of Temecula General Plan criteria sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB
CNEL for low- and medium- intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi- family housing.
Similarly, Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act and the Riverside County ALUCP
have also established that areas exposed to aircraft noise levels to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL are
considered compatible with residential uses. Because the 60 dB CNEL contours from use of the
approved helistop site are completely contained on the hospital campus, a significant noise impact
as defined by the City of Temecula's General Plan, Title 21, and the Riverside County ALUCP
would not occur. The CNEL noise contour impacts from the No Project Alternative would be the
same as what would occur under the proposed project, with the 65 and 60 dB CNEL contours
contained within the project site and the 55 dB contour encroaching onto residential land uses. As
a result, CNEL related noise impacts would be the same as those of the interim site under the
proposed project.
Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
As described in the Section 3.3, Noise, significant impacts related to permanent increases in
ambient noise would occur if locations with existing ambient noise levels between 55 and 60 dB
CNEL result in an increase of 3 dB; and if locations with existing ambient noise levels of more
than 60 dB CNEL have an increase of 1.5 dB. As shown in Table 4 -1, all of the noise
measurement locations have existing ambient noise levels greater than 55 dB CNEL; and two of
the locations (Sites 3 and 5) have ambient noise above 60 dB CNEL.
TABLE 4 -1
EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL MEASUREMENTS AND HELICOPTER CNEL NOISE FROM THE
APPROVED SITE
31602 Calle Los
Padres (adjacent to 24 hours 78.7 34.5 78.7 0.0
Highway 79)
NOTES:
Ambient Samples collected by Environmental Science Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014.
A 24 -hour noise measurement was not obtained at Site 4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for the equipment.
All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4 -1971.
SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Prolea 4 -9 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
Combined
Difference
Site
Site Description/
Measurement
AMBIENT
Helicopter
Ambient and
Between Ambient
Number
Address
Period
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Helicopter
and Combined
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
1
30390 De Ponola
24 hours
59.6
25.8
59.6
0.0
Road
2
30955 De Ponola
24 hours
58.9
46.9
59.2
+0.3
Road
31775 De pothole
3
Road
24 hours
615
47.5
63.6
+0.1
On project site, at
4
offset of proposed
20 minutes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
five -story bed tower
31602 Calle Los
Padres (adjacent to 24 hours 78.7 34.5 78.7 0.0
Highway 79)
NOTES:
Ambient Samples collected by Environmental Science Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014.
A 24 -hour noise measurement was not obtained at Site 4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for the equipment.
All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4 -1971.
SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Prolea 4 -9 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
4. Project Alternatives
The calculated helicopter - generated CNEL from use of the approved helistop at each of the
measurement locations is shown in Table 4 -1. Sites I and 2 would not experience an increase of 3
dB, nor would Sites 3 or 5 experience an increase of 1.5 dB from operation of the approved
helistop. Overall, the greatest increase in noise would be 0.3 CNEL, dB at Site 2, which is below
the 1.5 dB threshold. As a result, the No Project Alternative would not cause a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity; impacts would be less than
significant, which is the same as what would occur by the proposed project.
Short -Term Noise
In addition to the CNEL noise information that averages ambient noise over a 24 -hour period,
modeling of single -event noise that would be generated by helicopter operations by the No
Project Alternative was prepared to provide a detailed comparison of noise that would be
generated by use of the approved site.
Table 4 -2 shows the single -event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart
the approved helistop at locations shown in Figure 4 -4.
TABLE 4 -2
SINGLE -EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IN COMPARISON TO THE
PROPOSED INTERIM SITE
WEST FLOW EAST FLOW
(Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions)
Helicopter Difference Helicopter Difference Helicopter Difference Difference
Departure from Arrival from Departure from Helicopter from
Site Site Lmax, Interim Lmax, Interim Lmax, Interim Arrival Lmax, Interim
No. Location dBA" dBA dBA" dBA dBA" dBA dBA" dBA
1
30390 De
64.4
+3.5
66.4
-6.9
48.5
-3.5
48.4
-17.2
Portola
2
30955 De
85.7
+12.4
84.9
+15.7
74.1
-11.4
75.5
+1.0
Portola
3
31775 De
74.4
+14.9
75.9
+17
74.6
-3.2
76.4
+16.8
Portola
5
31602
60.5
-12.7
61.8
-17.9
60.5
-12.3
62.5
-13.1
Calle Los
Padres
6B
Equestrian
97.4
+21.1-
80.6
+8.7
791
-213
96.0
+18.4
Trail
Overflight
Noise levels from the interim site are listed in Table 3.3 -9, in the Noise Section of this SEIR.
Compares the noise of equestrian trail overflight per each heljstop. The locations of equestrian trail overflight are different for each helistop site.
Represents noise levels that veould occur from implementation of the currently approved heljstop.
SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helotop Project 4-10 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
psi
Site 6B +
�; • . •�_` ✓ �4` , � t - Site 3
'; •' r Site 2 ,.i.
Site t ' •,�..[ T PROJECT
S •- '
' �• �� - Site 6A a
-, tl + SITE
-
��,��
r. !
t Site 6C
a *�
d
++ ��..• Site S - • . N'4
r't .
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA
NOTE: Latitude and longitude coordinates for
Site 89 were unavailable and therefore omitted
from the single -s"M noise analysis.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 4 -4
Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations
l
rM
•
RI
..
.s
Site Locations.
'
-
',
�. •
+ • b �!
�It
0 1000
Y.
r, :\ •�...
�,'
Feet
vs
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA
NOTE: Latitude and longitude coordinates for
Site 89 were unavailable and therefore omitted
from the single -s"M noise analysis.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 4 -4
Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations
As with the proposed project, the duration of the maximum single -event noise would be very
limited in length and frequency, occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures
and four arrival Flights). The noise generated by helicopter flights to and from approved helistop
would result in a maximum noise level of up to 97.4 Lmax, dBA under prevailing wind
conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital). Under Santa Ana wind conditions,
helicopter overflight noise could expose areas to maximum noise levels of up to 96.0 Lmax, dBA.
This noise would be 4.8 Lmax, dBA less than what would occur under the proposed project that
would result in a maximum noise level of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA in Santa Ana conditions.
As provided in Table 4 -2, use of the approved helistop (No Project Alternative) during prevailing
wind conditions would result in a greater single -event noise level under seven scenarios (location
and departure /arrival), and a reduced noise level under three scenarios compared to what would
occur under the proposed project. Conversely, under Santa Ana conditions, use of the approved
helistop would result in reduced noise under seven scenarios, and a greater noise level under
three scenarios.
The greatest differences in noise level between the approved helistop site and the proposed
interim site would be during departures over the equestrian trail (Site 6B) from the approved
helistop where under prevailing wind conditions single -event noise would be 21.1 Lmax, dBA
greater than the proposed interim site. Under Santa Ana conditions use of the approved site would
generate 21.7 Lmax, dBA less at the equestrian trail than the proposed interim site. The noise
levels over the equestrian trail (Site 6B) are a result of the flight corridor crossing above this
location, which is along the equestrian trail. This noise is estimated to be the maximum noise at a
specific site on the trail and not representative of the entire equestrian trail.
Because the approved helistop site (No Project Alternative) would result in greater single -event
noise under a greater number of scenarios than the proposed project under prevailing wind
conditions, which would consist of a majority of flights to and from the hospital, the approved
helistop would result in greater single -event noise impacts than what would occur from the
proposed interim helistop (proposed project). As noted in Section 3.3, Noise, of this SEIR,
helicopter noise would be greater from the interim helistop at ground level than at the future
rooftop location where helicopters would be higher and farther from receptors. Therefore, the No
Project Alternative would result in greater noise impacts than the proposed permanent helistop as
well.
Conclusion
The No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project related to
aesthetics and noise, and does not reduce significant and unavoidable noise impacts to a less than
significant level. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is not the environmentally superior
alternative when compared to the proposed project.
In regards to meeting the project objectives, the No Project Alternative would (consistent with the
proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency
medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not meet the objective of
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4 -12 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Emoronmental Impact Report November 2014
4. Pmject Alternatives
ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, noise
impacts, and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project.
4.5 Alternative Interim Helistop Site
The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed interim helistop at
a different location on the project site. The alternative site would be at ground level in the
southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and
approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site as shown on Figure 4 -5.
This alternative would include an east -west flight path that would run along the north side of
Temecula Parkway. It would travel over existing commercial and institutional uses (i.e., the
Rancho Community Church and Christian Schools). Figure 4 -6 depicts the north -flow flight
corridors and Figure 4 -7 depicts the south -flow flight corridors for the alternative helistop site.
This helistop would include the same design, lighting, and security features as the interim helistop
described in Chapter 2, Project Description. However, red obstruction lights would also be
required on (or next to) several Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles along Temecula
Parkway to warn pilots of the pole locations at night.
As described in Section 2.4, Project Description, prevailing winds in the project region are to the
east, except during occasional Santa Ana wind conditions that blow westward. As a result of wind
direction, helicopters would generally approach the project site from the east, flying westbound
into the wind to land at the helistop; and would also take off in a westbound direction. During
Santa Ana or westbound wind conditions, which occur occasionally, helicopters would approach
from the west flying eastbound to land at the site, and take off also in an eastbound direction.
Both of these flight corridors are shown on Figures 4 -6 and 4 -7.
It should be noted that this alternative helistop site only applies to the proposed interim helistop
and does not affect the proposed permanent helistop, which is proposed on the roof of the future
hospital tower, or the location, design, or operation of the proposed 5,000- square -foot storage
building. In addition, the proposed storage building would be developed within the northeastern
portion of the project site under this alternative.
Aesthetics
The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would install lighting fixtures for nighttime
operations that would be similar to the proposed interim site. In addition, this alternative would
be required to install red obstruction lights on several SCE power poles along Temecula Parkway
(shown in Figure 4 -5) due to their proximity to the alternative helistop site and because the FAA
identifies power lines and poles as "hard to see' objects from the air, especially at night. Should
SCE not allow modification of these poles, new poles with red lighting would be required to be
installed adjacent to the existing light poles to ensure adequate obstruction lighting for this flight
path. One of the existing power poles is located directly south of the site and would penetrate the
southern 2:1 transitional surface of this proposed flight path. Because of this, a variance to
regulations related to transitional surface penetration would be required from Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics. However, this variance could only be granted if this light pole would be lighted at
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop project 4-13 ESA / 1311652
Drah Supplemental Environmental Impact Repoli Novemlaer 2014
night with red obstruction lights. If installed on the SCE poles, the lights would likely be on a
dusk -to -dawn photocell system, and be on all night. If the hospital installs the lighting poles along
Temecula Parkway, the lights would be connected to the helistop lighting system and activated
only for nighttime helicopter operations. Either way, with the additional lighting on SCE poles
along Temecula Parkway that would be on all night, or with the additional lighting poles along
Temecula Parkway that would be operated during nighttime helicopter operations and visible all
day along the roadway, implementation of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative
would result in greater aesthetic impacts than those of the proposed project. This alternative
would result in additional nighttime lighting, and potentially additional power pole structures
along the roadway.
Like the proposed site, the alternative interim helistop site would be surrounded by an
approximate five -foot tall security fence. However, unlike the proposed project, the heliport
would not be screened behind other planned hospital facilities and parking areas. The alternative
interim helistop site and the security fence would be much more visible to travelers along
Temecula Parkway.
The storage facility that would be constructed under this alternative would include the same
massing and design features and exterior lighting features that would occur under the proposed
project and would result in the same less than significant aesthetic impacts.
Therefore, because this alternative would result in a more visible helipad surrounded by security
fencing, this alternative increases aesthetic impacts over those of the proposed project.
Hazards
The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located 114 -feet north of Temecula
Parkway, which is lined with above ground power poles and transmission lines on the same side of
the street as the proposed project. The flight path required for this site (due to the prevailing winds at
the project site) is an east -west flight path that would run along Temecula Parkway. One existing
power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the alternative site's flight path
and the planned Medical Office Building 2 would penetrate the northern transitional surface.
The alternative site flight path along Temecula Parkway would cause an additional hazard related
to one power pole located directly south of the site, and additional red obstruction lighting along
Temecula Parkway would be required along with a variance for a transitional surface penetration
from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. It is the policy of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to
only grant variances for one side of a flight path. Therefore, with implementation of red
obstruction lighting along Temecula Parkway, development of Medical Office Building 2, which
would penetrate the northern transitional surface, would not be allowed as currently planned. The
planned building, along with the already developed underground utilities would need to be
relocated or reconfigured so that it would not penetrate the transitional surface. Overall, the need
for a variance for implementation of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative that is not
needed for the proposed project indicates that potential impacts related to the alternative helistop
site are greater than that of the proposed interim helistop site.
Tame la Valley Hospital Helistop Prgept 4-14 ESA / 130652
OraN Supplemental Environmental Impart Report November 2014
a � zao
� r.n
4
`SOGLF FAMLY
RESIDENfML `
48' DIAMETER CONCRETE
TLOF APPROX. 1060' MSL
(APPROX. 5 -6' ABOVE
GRADE ON MOUND)
87' DIAMETER
FATO'
S(IUXLt NMpYnwr�
i
M \
�p \\
51NDLE FAMILY /
/RESIDENTIAL MOIEOT MITE
`SINGLE FAMILY COMMERCE
RESIDENW
000, EN Al V
I�oWu yOUNP0 p0_
OMME!�CIAA�A \�
ort FOGY - 7ALI--
— SECURITY
"-FENC
SMILE FN11LY piC
�lytld� RESIDENTNL \ PPPp aLING
16' —WIDE 1 PME� apECt10N
SAFETY .MIND
AREA'
IemecJe VeMy HasO�iN HMaKP SEIP. 13M8 2
Figs 4 -5
ARemative Heliport Location
This page left intentionally blank
w•wi�,+�•+v v,a.n 4 -16
am s,vw,,.,ui c— —wl mv=,wwn xe...,w,zoU
SOURCE: ESA; iNM 7.00; USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
Figure 4 -6
Alternative Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors
all lllp�
t
f -
.C.} } 5,
t
w
r �
(r 'r ♦' .tom ' +.k 't
P•°aM1or Fd
` '. '.• PROJECT ,t
i. ri' . •� SITE
9
Alternelrve HGlTstop
t. u
'1a' -" `1 -s M •are+'• •�
i
f.•f s
• 0f
1
_ j - �,• Flight Corridors
` +S• - jt„r,� ••• Arrivals
'j�Ta +.A``7 •' - Departures
0 1000
'' \ �•T4'.. tT lc .ar Feet
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.Od; USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop SEIR . 130652
Figure 4 -7
Alternative Helistop - South -Flow Flight Corridors
As shown in Figure 4 -5, the flight path of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative not
only travels along Temecula Parkway, but also across the frontage of the existing hospital and
flights would land on the helistop on the ground. Hence, the helicopters would reduce altitude (or
increase altitude) as they cross the frontage of the operating hospital site and land on the helipad
that is 114 -feet away from Temecula Parkway. This helicopter activity would be adjacent to
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle travelers on the roadway and would be large -scale forefront
activity that could cause distractions to drivers along the roadway and lead to vehicle accidents,
or could cause confusion/distraction to emergency room patients entering the facility by personal
vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and take -offs 114 -Feet away from Temecula Parkway
could impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the sidewalk that fronts the hospital due to
rotorwash (winds generated from the helicopter).
In comparison, the flight path of the proposed interim helistop (shown on Figure 2 -3) would
travel from behind the existing and planned hospital facilities, and would cross (not travel along)
Temecula Parkway at a location farther away from the hospital that would provide the distance
and trajectory to be far above the roadway to not cause the distraction that could be caused by the
Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative.
The location of the proposed interim helistop is in the northwestern portion of the project site
toward the rear of the hospital facilities, and helicopter activity at the proposed interim site would
consist of middle ground activity, with parking lot and hospital facilities in the foreground. The
middle ground helicopter activity would be buffered from Temecula Parkway by other hospital
uses, which would reduce distraction to travelers along the roadway in comparison to the
Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative.
In addition, the proposed flight path would not travel above or cross vehicular paths from
Temecula Parkway through the hospital site to the emergency room (such as would be done by
the alternative helistop site), and would not result in the level of potential confusion for persons in
an emergency situation to access the emergency room that could occur from the Alternative
Interim Helistop Site Alternative flight path. Also, because helicopter landings and take -offs
would not be adjacent to Temecula Parkway and would be buffered by hospital facilities, safety
concerns related to pedestrians and bicyclists along the public sidewalk that fronts the hospital
would not occur, as it could by the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. Overall, the
Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative results in greater potential impacts related to hazards
than would occur by the interim helistop site proposed by the project.
Noise
Construction Noise
Construction of this alternative would not result in any changes related to construction noise and
construction noise impacts would be the same under this alternative as would occur under the
proposed project, and No Project Alternative as described above.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4 -19 ESA / 13064
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
CNEL Standards
Figure 4 -8 shows the CNEL noise contours that would result from the alternative interim helistop
site. As shown, the 65 CNEL contour would remain within the project site; the 60 CNEL contour
crosses the mid -line of Temecula Parkway, and the 55 CNEL contour includes a portion of the
residential uses across Temecula Parkway from the project site.
In comparison, the CNEL contours from the proposed interim helistop site (shown on Figure 3.3-
7) would largely remain within the project site, except for a small portion of the 55 CNEL
contour that would extend north past the equestrian trail and into back yards of two residential
properties. Hence, 60 dB CNEL contours from both the proposed interim and the alternative
interim sites would remain within the hospital site, with small areas of the 55 dB CNEL contour
including noise sensitive uses.
The City of Temecula General Plan criteria set noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB
CNEL for low- and medium- density housing. Similarly, Title 21 of the California State
Aeronautics Act and the Riverside County ALUCP also establishes that areas exposed to aircraft
noise levels to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL are considered compatible with residential uses.
Because the 60 dB CNEL contours from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative are
completely contained on the hospital campus, a significant noise impact as defined by the City of
Temecula's General Plan, Title 21, and the Riverside County ALUCP would not occur. The
CNEL noise contour impacts from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be the
same as what would occur at the interim site of the proposed project. With 65 and 60 dB CNEL
contours contained within the project site, CNEL related noise impacts would be less than
significant.
Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located closer than the proposed
interim site to Temecula Parkway and the residential neighborhood across (south of) Temecula
Parkway where existing ambient noise levels are 78.7 dB CNEL. As shown on Table 4 -3, the
alternative site would increase noise at Site 2 by 0.1 CNEL dB and the remainder of the sites,
including the residential across Temecula Parkway, would not experience an increase in CNEL
noise. In comparison, the proposed project would result in an increase in ambient noise by 0.2
CNEL dB at Site 2 and 0.1 CNEL dB increase at Site 3 (Table 3.3 -10).
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-20 ESA / 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
/\
•A-- Mev I� f
i ..
• i • •• 4
ANA
r,
✓' y
i SecngO�IapKwY-
} 79
^•r -N If
CNEL Contours
— 55 d8 ,•♦
—60 dB _+
65 dB 1 �•`� -
Noise Sensitive � , r ✓ ". •w
Land Use
i
0 500 •. .i �•ti•.alstf� f`ts+ j¢IR
Y
Feet
s
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652
SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.Od; City M Temecula: USDA Figure A 0
Alternative Helistop Location - CNEL Contours
� - t• � Oepodota«
ter
1
PROJECT
SITE
•
r r
t
Alternative Helistop
L
4. Project Alternatives
TABLE 4-3
EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND HELICOPTER NOISE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE
INTERIM SITE
Site
Number
Site Description/
Address
Measurement
Period
AMBIENT
CNEL, dB
Helicopter
CNEL, dB
Combined
Ambient and
Helicopter
CNEL, dB
Difference
Between
Ambient and
Combined
Helicopter
CNEL, dB
1
30390 De Portola Road
24 hours
59.6
28.6
59.6
0.0
2
30955 De Portola Road
24 hours
58.9
39.8
59.0
+0.1
3
31775 De Portola Road
24 hours
63.5
33.8
63.5
0.0
4
On project site, at offset
20 minutes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
of proposed five -story bed
tower
5
31602 Calle Los Padres
24 hours
78.7
53.4
78.7
0.0
(adjacent to Highway 79)
NOTES:
Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014.
All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National
Standards Institute
(ANSI) S1.4 -1971.
SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014.
The differences in CNEL noise generated from the proposed interim site and the alternative
interim site are very minimal and below the 3 dB threshold for locations with existing ambient
noise levels between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, and below the 1.5 dB threshold for locations with
existing ambient noise levels of more than 60 dB CNEL. As a result, the Alternative Interim
Flelistop Site Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity, impacts would be less than significant, which is the same as what
would occur under the proposed project.
Short-Term Noise
In addition to the CNEL noise information that averages ambient noise over a 24 -hour period,
noise modeling of single -event noise that would be generated by helicopter operations at both the
interim helistop and the alternative site was prepared to provide a detailed comparison of noise
that would be generated by use of the Alternative Interim Flelistop Site Alternative and the
proposed interim helistop site. Table 4 -4 shows the single -event noise that would be generated as
helicopters arrive and depart the alternative helistop site. As with the proposed project, the
duration of the maximum single -event noise would be very limited in length and frequency
occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights). The
noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the alternative interim helistop would result in a
maximum noise level of up to 85.7 Lmax, dBA under prevailing wind conditions (for a majority
of flights to and from the hospital). Under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise
from the alternative helistop site could expose areas to maximum noise levels of up to 79.7 Lmax,
dBA. This noise would be 21.1 Lmax, dBA less than what would occur under the proposed
project, which would result in a maximum noise level of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA in Santa Ana
conditions.
Temewla Valley Hoaµal Hel*Wp Project 4 -22 ESA 1 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmenal Impaot Reyon November 2014
4.
TABLE 4.4
SINGLE -EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITE AND COMPARISON TO
PROPOSED INTERIM SITE
Site Site
No. Location
Helicopter
Departure
Lmax,
dBA
WEST FLOW
(Prevailing Winds)
Difference
from Helicopter
Interim Arrival
dBA Lmax, dBA
Difference
from
Interim
dBA
Helicopter
Departure
Lmax, dBA
EAST FLOW
(Santa Ana Conditions)
Difference
from Helicopter
Interim Arrival Lmax,
dBA dBA
Difference
from
Interim
dBA
1 30390 De
64.4
+3.5 66.4
-6.9
48.5
-3.5
48.4
-17.2
Portola
2 30955 De
85.7
+12.4 84.9
+15.7
74.1
-11.4
75.5
+1.0
Portola
3 31775 De
74.4
+14.8 75.9
+17.0
74.6
-3.2
76.4
+16.8
Portola
5 31602
60.5
-127 61.8
-18.1
60.5
-12.3
62.5
-13.1
Calls Los
Padres
6C Equestrian
73.6
-2.7 73.3
+1.4
73.4
-27.4
79.7
+2.1
Trail
Noise levels from the interim site are listed in Table 3.3 -9, in the Nosie Section of this SEIR.
Compares the noise of equestrian trail overflight per each helistop. The
locations of equestrian
trail overflight are different for each helistop site.
SOURCE: ESA Airports
Analysis, 2014.
As provided in Table 4 -4, use of the alternative helistop site during prevailing wind conditions
would result in a greater single -event noise levels under six scenarios, and a reduced noise level
under four scenarios than the proposed interim site. Under Santa Ana conditions, use of the
alternative helistop site would result in reduced noise under seven scenarios, and a greater noise
level under three scenarios.
Because the alternative helistop site would result in greater single -event noise under a greater
number of scenarios than the proposed project under prevailing wind conditions, which would
consist of a majority of flights to and from the hospital, the alternative helistop site would result
in greater single -event noise impacts than what would occur from the proposed interim helistop
(proposed project).
The greatest difference in noise level between the interim and alternative sites would be during
the less frequent Santa Ana conditions and helicopter departures at Site 6C where helicopter noise
from use of the interim helistop would be 27.4 Lmax, dBA greater than at the alternative helistop
site. The noise levels at Site 6C are a result of helicopters in the departure corridor flying near this
location along the equestrian trail. This noise is a maximum at a point close to the flight corridor,
and is not representative of noise along the entire equestrian trail.
Overall, noise impacts from the Alternative Helistop Site Alternative would be greater than the
proposed project under prevailing wind conditions, due to the number of scenarios under which
higher noise would result. However, the greatest noise under the Alternative Helistop Site
Alternative would be 27.4 Lmax dBA less than noise generated from use of the interim helistop
Temecula Valley Hosptal Hetbtop Project 4 -23 ESA / 130652
Omft supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
4. Project Altematives
site. Therefore, this alternative would result in both greater and fewer noise impacts to identified
sensitive receptors than the proposed project.
Conclusion
The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts than the
proposed project related to aesthetics and hazards than the proposed project; and both greater and
fewer noise related impacts. Therefore, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative is not the
environmentally superior alternative when compared to the proposed project.
In regards to meeting the project objectives, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative
would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior,
easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not
meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of
aesthetics and hazards impacts.
4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table 4 -5 summarizes the impacts of each of the alternatives relative to the project. Section
15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior
alternative. Based on the above analysis, the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior
Alternative, As shown in Table 4 -5 and described previously in this EIR Section, the No Project
Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and noise impacts than would occur by the proposed
project; and the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics
and hazards impacts than would occur by the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project
is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
TABLE 4.5
COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Impact Category
Proposed Project
No Project Alternative
Alternative Site
Aesthetics
Less than significant
Greater
Greater
Hazards
Less than significant
Similar
Greater
Noise
Significant and Unavoidable
Greater
Greater /Fewer
Meets the project objectives
Yes
Yes, but not to the same
Yes, but not to the same
extent as the proposed
extent as the proposed
project
project
Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Project 4 -24
ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
November 2014
CHAPTER 5
References
Air Combat Command. 2001. Initial F -22 Operational Wing Beddown Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Volumes 1 through 3. Apri 12001. Accessed at
http: / /www.globalsecurity.org /military/ library/report/enviro /F22DraftEis/ on June 5, 2014.
Blazer, Don. 2012. Can You Hear Me Now? Horses and Hearing. Accessed at
http: // www. donblazer. com /ahorseofcourse /02_12_cars.html on June 5, 2014.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics. 1997. Information
Concerning Hospital Heliports and Emergency Medical Service Landing Sites, May 1997.
Accessed at
http:/ /www. dot.ca.gov /hq/ planning/ aeronauUhelipads /documents/heliport_ems_info.pdf on
January 10, 2014.
Caltrans, 1998. Technical Noise Supplement, A Technical Supplement to Traffic Noise Analysis
Protocol, October 1998. Accessed at
http: / /www.dot.ca.gov /hq/ env / noise / pub / Technical %20Noise %2OSupplement.pdf on
October 7, 2014.
City of Temecula. 2005. City of Temecula Citywide Design Guidelines. August 9, 2005.
Accessed at
http: / /www. cityoftemec ula. org/ Temecula /Govemment /CommDev /Planning /zoningdocume
nts /citywidedesign.htm on December 31, 2013.
City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan. Accessed at
http: / /www.cityoftemecula. org / Temecula / GovemmenUCommDev /Planning/zoningdocume
nts /generalplan.htm on December 31, 2013.
City of Temecula. City of Temecula Municipal Code. Accessed at
http: / /www.gcode.us/ codes /temecula /view.php' ?topic =l7 &frames =off on December 31,
2013.
Department of the Air Force. 2000. Realistic Bomber Training Initiative: Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Volume 1. January 2000. Accessed at
http: / /www.acc.af.mil/ shared / media /document /afd- 070806 -04 Lpdf on June 4, 2014.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2012. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory
Circular, Subject: Heliport Design. AC No: 150/5390 -2C. April 24, 2012. Accessed at
http: / /www.faa. gov /documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular /150_5390_2c.pdf on
January 10, 2014.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hel'atop Project 5 -1 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014
5. References
Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2003. State of Califomia General Plan Guidelines (in
coordination with the California Department of Health Services). October 2003. Accessed
at http: / /opr.ca.gov /s_ generalplanguidelines.php on January 22, 2014.
Riverside County. 2004. Riverside County Airport I -and Use Compatibility Plan. October 2004.
Accessed at http : / /www.rcaluc.org /plan_new.asp in December 2013.
State of California. 2014. Aeronautics Law State Aeronautics Act Public Utility Code. Accessed
at http: / /www.dot.ca.gov /hq /planning/ aeronaut / documents /regulations /cpuc_21001.pdf on
January 10, 2014.
State of California. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Sections 3525 through 3560.
Airports and Heliports. Accessed at
http: / /www.dot.ca.gov /hq /planning/ aeronaut / documents /regulations /Regs _pub.pdf on
January 10, 2014.
United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA).
Appendix LA-1. Decibel Notation. Accessed at
www.osha.gov /dts /osta/otm/ noise /health_effects /decibels.html on January 10, 2014.
Wieland Associates, Inc.. 2007. Supplemental Noise Studvfor the Temecula Regional Flospitol in
Temecula. October 2007.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop project 5-2 ESA 1130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Repon November2014
CHAPTER 6
List of Preparers
Lead Agency — City of Temecula
Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner
Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers)
Eric Ruby, Project Director
Steven Alverson, Director of Noise Analysis
Renee Escano, Project Manager
Sean Burlingame, Noise Analyst
Kelly Ross, Project Analyst
Paige Anderson, Project Analyst
Jason Nielsen, GIS
Linda Uehara, Graphic Artist
Temecula Valley Hospital Helime! Project 6 -I ESA / 130652
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2010
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation and
Initial Study / NOP Comments
Notice of Preparation and
Initial Study
F �JISA
City of Temecula
Planning Department Notice of Preparation
To: Attached Distribution List
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Temecula
Consulting Firm:
Community Development Dept.
ESA
41000 Main Street
9191 Towne Centre Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
San Diego, CA 92122
Contact: Stuart Fisk
Rene Escario
Phone Number: (951) 506 -5159
(213) 599 -4300
The City of Temecula Community Development Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare
a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the project identified below. We need to
know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is
germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your
agency will need to use the SEIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other
approvals for the project. The project description, location, and initial environmental study are
contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response
must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 70 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to Stuart Fisk with the City of Temecula Community Development
Department at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency.
Project Title: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141)
Project Location: 31700 Temecula Parkway, Temecula, CA (Riverside County)
Project Description: A Major Modification application for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development
Plan and Helistop Conditional Use Permit in response to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division
regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. The
Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop on the developed site to two new
locations including an interim location for use during Phase I and a final location on top of a future
hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase.
4
Patrick Richardson, Director of Community Development Date
City of Temecula
Planning Department Agency Distribution List
PROJECT: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141)
DISTRIBUTION DATE: November 25, 2013 CASE PLANNER: Stuart Fisk
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety ........... ................................ (X)
Fire Department ................ ............................(X)
Sheriff............................. ............................... (X)
Parks & Recreation (TCSD) .......................... ( )
Public Works ..................... ............................(X)
............... ( )
STATE:
Caltrans............... ...............................
Fish & Game ....... ...............................
Mines & Geology . ...............................
Regional Water Quality Control Board
State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) ........
Water Resources . ...............................
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers .............
Fish and Wildlife Service ..............
Federal Aviation Administration....
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District,
Western Riverside COG .............
Regional Conservation Authority
...........(X)
...........(X)
........... ( )
... (X)
........... (X)
........... ( )
........... ( )
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Airport Land Use Commission ......................
(X)
Engineer........................ ...............................
(X)
Flood Control ................... ..............................(
)
Health Department ......... ...............................
(X)
Parks and Recreation ...... ..............................(
)
Planning Department ........ ............................(X)
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ........
(X)
Riverside Transit Agency . ..............................(
.............(
)
)
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District ....................( )
TimeWarner .................... ..............................( )
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ............( )
Southern California Gas ... ..............................( )
Southern California Edison ........................... (X)
Temecula Valley School District .....................( )
Metropolitan Water District .............................( )
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation ....................... (X)
Eastern Information Center ............................( )
Local Agency Formation Comm .....................( )
RCTC............................. ..............................( )
Temecula Unified School District ..................( )
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians ..................( )
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Temecula Valley Hospital Major Modification
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590
Contact Person and Phone Number
Stuart Fisk, AICP
951 506 -5159
Project Location
The project is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway, generally located
on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet east
of Margarita Road.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
William Seed
Universal Health Services Rancho Springs Inc.
Universal Corporation Center
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia PA 19406
General Plan Designation
Professional Office PO
Zoning
Planned Development Overlay-9 PDO -9
Description of Project
A Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development
Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport
from the east side of the project site to the west side of the site and
to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the
Phase 11 hospital tower at 31700 Temecula Parkway.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Temecula Valley Hospital project area encompasses 35.31
acres and was approved by the Temecula City Council on February
8, 2011 for a 566,160 square foot hospital and office building
complex to include a 408,160 square foot, two -tower hospital
complex consisting of 320 hospital beds, 140,000 square feet of
office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, an 8,000 square
foot fitness rehabilitation center, a 60 -foot by 60 -foot heliport near the
northeast corner of the hospital building, and associated service
areas, lighting, parking, pedestrian paths throughout the project site,
and a multi -use trail near the northern boundary of the site. The site
has been graded, the first hospital tower is nearing completion and is
expected to open in August 2013, and Phase I parking and
landscaping has been installed. Surrounding land uses include
commercial and single - family residences to the south (across
Temecula Parkway); single - family residences to the north (across De
Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses
to the west; and offices and commercial uses to the east.
Other public agencies whose approval
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
is required
and the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics
Division CALTRANS
G:TI_ANNING\20131PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOD \Planning \CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx
I
F%
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X
Aesthetics
Mineral Resources
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
X
Noise
Air Quality
Pop ulation and Housing
Biological Resources
Public Services
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Recreation
Cultural Resources
X
Transportation and Traffic
Geology and Soils
Utilities and Service Systems
X
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
X
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Hydrology and Water Quality
None
Land Use and Planning
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
X
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
I/
Stuart Fisk
Printed Name
Date-
City of Temecula
For
GAPLANNINGM131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MODtPlanning\CEQA Initial Study.docx
2
Project Site',
�O0
S GABRI TN7,— R �' �, ` t f '\'! / t�
- - 9'HANT14A LN
11 A V`Pp
JIN
a i !nC /j
1;� Vt � ✓' OS l t I y f tl Yt 1tI 11 � � i
Y tRE � ! `\ Q• S ,. i � -. VIA CORDOBA r ".. � r �
yFp 1: —. ,gyp ',.� . � "'.
g�C�tJ,rP�EpR, 844 r/0 �Or�•,1,:
09MWp SR9p0
M °Y•9� �`G`�' i Q Off- 44. K° r' ..:r �At molm" , r `; t li 1�� 4R0
r (,+ . �•'
n
.
Soo I.M z000 y.
I .
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Law TW
roanwr
SWACNrwee Lmrw
Issas and Suppo g 1 001 W 1pfl Saaow SIpallCaal
Mwgsftn 3~ No
a
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
b
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
X
within a state scenic highway? .
c
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
X
of the site and its surroundings?
d
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
X
adverse) affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Comments:
1.a -c. No Impact: The project involves a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development
Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from the east side of the project site to the
west side of the site and to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the Phase II hospital
tower. The proposed project is not located in a view shed area as identified by the Community Design Element
of the Temecula General Plan and the project is not anticipated to result in impact to scenic vista beyond those
addressed in the EIR or Supplemental EIR previously adopted by the Temecula City Council for the hospital
campus.
1.d. Potentially Significant Impact: The project involves a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley
Hospital Development Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from the east side of
the project site to the west side of the site and to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the
Phase II hospital tower. The revised flight path for the heliport will result in relocated and new lighting specific
to the heliport, including lighting required to meet Federal and State regulations for the heliport. Although, the
relocation of this lighting and any additional lighting associated with the heliport is not anticipated to be
significant, a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess this potential impact in greater detail.
G.\ PLANNINGQ0131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\PlanMng',CEOAICEOA Initial Study al cx
3
i
2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
Project-, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted
by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Lm Then
POWWY ma+br+ ID un Than
Mom end suppor g Infomi~ swu � ftAm [ No
nd
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and X
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
b IConflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources X
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g)?
d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land X
to non - forest use
e Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X
Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non - forest use?
Comments:
2.a -e. No Impact: According to Figure OS -3 of the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site does not
contain any Forest Land, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non -
agriculture use and therefore will not convert or impact any of these Farmland types. The project site does not
contain any type of farmland and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, nor is the project site intended to
be used for an agricultural Use. Furthermore, the site has been graded and has been partially developed in
conformance with the approved Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan No impact will occur as a result
of the project.
G.\PLANNING\2013 \PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport M0MP1anning \CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.doox
4
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
poi lagy 91OMIICrM WIN Lerr TM
larueeanllsl/PWIlroMdleMOnsorew SWAC.m Mft~ swillic r No
a
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
X
air quality plan?
b
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
X
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
X
concentrations?
e
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
X
of people?
Comments:
3.a -e. No Impact: The proposed Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and
Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from the east side of the project site to the west side of
the site and to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the Phase II hospital tower will be
completed in conformance with the EIR and Supplemental EIR adopted for the project and will not conflict with
or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, will not violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, will not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors), is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations, and is not anticipated to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people.
G:\PLANNING\2013\PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Plaming \CEQA\CEQA Initial S"A=
5
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Lass Than
PotaNesy Slandkve wM Ise Than
blues and Suppowl; lnformalan Sources Staniecara Uftation swrocsnt No
I KI _�ecl knpw
a
_
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
x
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community Identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
x
Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
x
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish Gr wildlife species or with
x
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
x
ordinance?
f
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
x
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian?
Comments:
4.a -f. No Impact: The project involves a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development
Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from the east side of the project site to the
west side of the site and to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the Phase II hospital
tower. The project site has been graded and has been partially developed in conformance with the approved
Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and adopted EIR and Supplemental EIR. Relocation of the
heliport on the developed site will not impact wildlife, habitat, federally protected wetlands, the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, nor will the relocation of the heliport conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
G: IPLANNING120131PA13.0141 UHS Heliport M0D1PIanninglCEDA10E0A Initial Study.dco
6
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
tas Thwn
as ftly 90111FIC"Wit LMPM
Wa ad awp«nna Mamamn Sournf 311111owt A V40on SWAMI No
uco
a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments
5.a -d. No Impact: The project site has been graded and that grading was monitored by representatives of
the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. The site has also been partially developed in conformance with the
approved Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and adopted EIR and Supplemental EIR. Relocation of
the heliport on the graded site will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5, will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5, will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and will not disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
G \PLANNING \2013\PA13-0141 U H S Heliport MM Planning \CEOA\CE GA Initial Study docx
7
IV
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Less Then
PaarMNy SpnAlgnl WAh I Lm Than
Issas and suppabq Information Swnm MfOpatlon sipnHkaN No
Mnpacl Incogt9J(b._ _pnptact __ Irnin
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects. includino the risk of loss. iniurv. or death involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42
Strong seismic round shaking? X
Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
substantial soil erosion or the loss of
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and X
potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks X
to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
6.a.i -iv. and 6 c. Less Than Significant Impact: A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the
project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital, Temecula, CA, PSI, Inc , May 14, 2004) The
project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The project will not rupture
a known fault since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the project site. The Lake Elsinore
Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc.,
May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this
or other nearby faults. To address subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential
settlements under a combination of structural loads and seismically induced soil liquefaction, site construction
required over - excavation and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements, which was completed
with the mass grading of the site. The Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan did not identify any
known landslide or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site.
6.b. No Impact: The heliport relocation project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil. The project site is relatively flat topographically and is being developed in accordance with City
standards, including National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the
implementation of erosion control and Best Management Practices (BMPs), have been incorporated into the
overall project construction and will be required for the heliport relocation, resulting in no impact with regard to
soil erosion and the loss of topsoil
6.d. No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the project is not
located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc. also identifies the soils on the
G:TLANNINGt2013XPA13 -0141 UNS Neepon M0D \P1anning10EOA\CEOA Initial Study doa
8
project site as "very low expansion potential" as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18 -1 -B.
The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report prepared by PSI Inc.
and no impacts are anticipated.
6.e. No Impact: Neither the heliport relocation project nor the overall hospital project site will utilize septic
tanks. A public sewer system is available and the project has made connection to this system. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and waste treatment facilities are adequate
to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility.
GAPLANNING\2013\PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Planning \CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.dou
9
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
i«aTMn
POW Mrally Sipnicant wM taaa Thn
1sL s and Stpporonp Intor!nason Sources swilkant Mpallorl $IplMpara NO
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X
environment?
conriict with an appucaole plan, policy or regulation acoptec
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
Comments:
F
7.a.b. Less Than Significant Impact: At this time there are no adopted statewide guidelines for greenhouse
gas emission (GHG) impacts, but this is being addressed through the provisions of Senate Bill 97 (SB 97). In
addition, the City of Temecula does not have any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs For the proposed project, the heliport relocation project would be considered
to have a significant impact if the protect would be in conflict with the AB 32 State goals for reducing GHG
emissions. Staff assumes that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the
cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. It is not anticipated that the heliport relocation project could
have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG.
GHG Impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts. there are no non - cumulative greenhouse
gas emission impacts from a climate change perspective per the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA, 2008) The proposed project would contribute to global climate change as a result of
emissions of GHGs, primarily CO, emitted by construction activities. However, the project will not conflict with
the CARB's thirty -nine (39) recommended actions in California's AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The
project is expected to have a less than significant impact with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.
G:TI- ANNING140131PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport M0D\Plannrng\CEQA10EQA Initial Study.do
10
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Lima Then
btu; and Suplmng Irfonneaon Soule flipill, MMONdw all I loert No
a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of X
hazardous materials?
b
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
X
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
c
hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous
X
materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the pubhc or the environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
e
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
X
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
f
project result In a safety hazard for people residing or
X
working in the project area?
g
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
X
evacuation plan?
h
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wiktlands?
Comments:
8.a-c. Less Than SignMcant Impact: The heliport relocation project is not likely to create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. The project does involve a heliport to be utilized for medical purposes and as such could result in
the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (such as medical waste). The project site is
located within one- quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed heliport relocation
project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions, materials or wastes that would create a significant
impact and the heliport will operate in conformance with the previously adopted EIR and Supplemental EIR for
the hospital project. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed heliport
relocation project.
8.d. No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. The project site was reviewed for impact relating to Methyl Tertiary
Butyl Ether (MTBE) from nearby gas station underground fuel storage tanks. Although no detectable
G:IPVW NING\20131PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOMPlanning\CEOA\CEOA Initial Study dom
11
concentrations of MTBE or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were found at the project site, mitigation
measures were established and adopted with the Supplemental EIR for the hospital project. Those mitigation
measures were followed during grading of the site and will be followed during all on -site construction. No
impact is anticipated as a result of relocation of the heliport.
8.e. No Impact: The project site is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP) and there are no other airports located near the project site.
8.f. Potentially Significant Impact: Although a heliport for the project site has already been reviewed and
approved and the relocation of the heliport is intended to improve safety for people residing or working in the
project area, further analysis of the proposed heliport relocation areas and flight paths is necessary and a
Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess this potential impact in greater detail.
8.g. No Impact: The project site is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or
evacuation plan. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed heliport relocation will
actually assist in local treatment of the injured, especially in the event of an emergency. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8.h. No Impact: Neither the heliport relocation areas nor the overall hospital project site are located in or
near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the heliport relocation project.
GIPLANNING\2013\PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOD \Planning \CEOA \CEOA Initial Study.docx
12
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Lm Then
Powdilly ftft awn urnrn
issues w supportirg lnlpm~ souw 0, a --in No
a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water X
quality?
b
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
X
pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
X
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
X
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off -site?
e
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
X
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f
Require the preparation of a project-specific WQMP?
X
g
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
In
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
i
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
X
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
Comments:
9.a. No Impact: The heliport relocation project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. Development will be required to comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.
By complying with the NPDES requirements the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
9.b. No Impact: The heliport relocation project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the
quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals. The proposed project is
G:IPLANNING20131PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOMPWnninglCE0A10ECIA Initial Study.do
13
required to comply with local development standards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements,
which will allow percolation and ground water recharge. Relocation of the heliport on the project site is not
anticipated to result in any impacts to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge.
9.c. No Impact: The heliport relocation project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. The overall hospital project includes an on -site drainage plan and
the proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not alter off -site drainage patterns or alter the
course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on -or off -site. The project is
also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which
addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
94 No Impact: The proposed heliport relocation project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site because
the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The City of Temecula Public Works Department
reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on -site drainage
and that off -site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.
9.e. No Impact: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination
System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. No impact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.
9.f. No Impact: The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
established by the State of California. The overall hospital project was required to prepare a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate Storm -Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The WQMP was accepted prior to issuance of the
grading permit for the project site. The water quality control measures identified in the WQMP will be
incorporated into the design of the heliport relocation project and will be expected to eliminate potential
adverse impacts to receiving waters.
9.g. No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within
a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
9.h -i. No Impact. The project site was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown in the
Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. Improvements to Temecula Creek have resulted in a new
100 -year and 500 -year flood plain boundary delineation. Temecula Creek, which is the primary drainage
course in the immediate area, was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The dredging of Temecula
Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements and dredging were
completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps
have been issued (FIRM, Community -Panel Number 060742 -0010 B, revised November 20, 1996). A portion
of the project site is now identified as being within the 500 -year flood area.
The project site was located within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of Temecula
General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD provided the City with a Dam Inundation report which includes
language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek. An additional study obtained from the Riverside
County Flood, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996
further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. The FEMA study shows that the dredging of Temecula
WPLANNING=13TA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOD1Planning%CEOA10E0A Initial Study.docx
14
Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in the event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of
Vail Lake Dam. The proposed project will relocate a heliport within a 500 -year flood hazard area, as identified
in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996). The applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA
standards. The proposed heliport relocation project is not anticipated to impede or redirect flood flows.
A letter dated January 29, 1996, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted
floodplain boundaries. The letter and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100 -year discharge
capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500 -year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and
letter also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 100 -year flood energy grade lines and 100 -year
flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail Lake Dam is a 51,000 acre feet facility. No impact is
anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on the hospital site.
9.j. No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line or large body of water which would
subject the site to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, no impact is anticipated as a result of
the proposed project.
GAiPIANNING120131PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOD \Planning \CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.d=
15
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
pow wally elptaramwe Lmnm
Issues arM SuppoNrp Informatm Swu 8001 MMB6EM swdmt No
a_cl Iron aaNd M al:t VMS
Physically divide an established community? X
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including. but not limited to the general plan. specific X
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plaJor
X
natural community conservation plan?
Comments:
10.a. No Impact: The project site has been approved for and constructed as a hospital facility. The
proposed heliport relocation project is compatible with the hospital site and is conditionally permitted under the
current zoning designation No impact is anticipated as a result of the relocation of the heliport on the hospital
site
10.b. No Impact: The heliport relocation project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (Including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. The heliport is conditionally permitted in the current zoning designation and was
analyzed in the previous EIR and Supplemental EIR adopted for the hospital project.
10c No Impact: The project site has been graded and Is being developed in accordance with the Western
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan, the previously adopted EIR and Supplemental EIR, and the Army
Corps 404 Permit, California Department of Fish & Wildlife 1602 Permit, and Regional Water Quality Control
Board 401 Permit obtained for the hospital project. The relocation of the heliport will not impact compliance
with any of these documents or permits, including the Western Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan
G: IPLANNING120131PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOMPIanoing',CEQA%CEQA Infial Sludy.dmx
16
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Lou Than
pow"lly S'pnMeantwrh Lou Then
Issue, 0� 0 S'Vr:'1 Srun:es slpm!kant I L% gallon I SVOcard I No
a Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the !, I X
residents o_ f the state?
b Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X
general plan, specific plan or other land use Ian?
Comments:
11.a.b. No Impact: The proposed heliport relocation project will not result in the loss of available, known
mineral resources or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. Per the City
of Temecula General Plan, the State Geologist has given the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ -3a.
MRZ -3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete
and crushed stone aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of
significant economic value. No impact is anticipated as a result of the project.
GIPLANNING120131PA13.0141 UHS Heliport MOD\PIaminglCEOACEOA Initlai SWdy.d=
17
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
1.40 Than
M*M and swl�+y InWnnalim 8w.0M OVAL nt 1ptlpadon1 9gdldand Hd
linpact 11MCOMMOW 11111110m know
a
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
X
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
X
roundbome vibration or gro undborne_ noise levels?
c
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
X
project?
d
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
X
without the project?
e
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
X
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
X
_project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
12 a.c d f. Potentially Significant Impact: Due to the nearby commercial and office uses and residences in
the area of the project site, the relocation of the heliport may result in potentially significant noise impacts. A
Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess these potential impacts in greater detail.
12.b. less Than Significant Impact: The exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundbome noise levels is often the result of construction activities. Though the relocation of the
heliport will require the use of trucks and other equipment to construct the heliport, it is not anticipated that
these activities would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundbome noise levels and impact is anticipated to be less than significant.
12.e. No Impact: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore the project would not expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from a pubic airport.
G. IPLANNINGl2013TA73-0141 UHS HaNW M0D1PIannir0CEOACEOA Initial S".da
18
11 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
►as Ttwr
PoWMYy swe"MwMh LM TTn
iss s and Supporwa Y1l parson So1/0N swelc d YUQa110n Stailikenit NO
kroad
a
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
X
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
X
elsewhere?
c
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
13.a -c. No Impact: The relocation of the heliport on the project site will not induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, will not displace any existing housing, or displace any people.
The project site has been approved for and is being constructed as a hospital campus. Relocating the heliport
on the project site will not induce population growth, and since the site contains no housing or residents, the
project will not displace housing or people. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
G TLANNING1201"A13 -0111 UHS Heliport MOMPlanninglCECIA10ECA InNial Sludy.dou
19
14. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Comments:
14.a.b. Lass Than Significant Impact: The heliport relocation project is not anticipated to result in impacts
regarding Fire or Police protection beyond those already anticipated as a result of the previously approved
heliport once the project construction is completed. Considering both the construction of the heliport facility
and the use of the facility once completed, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the
heliport relocation project.
14.c -e. No Impact: The relocation of the heliport on the project site will not result in adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for schools, parks, or other public
facilities.
G: PIANNINGQ013 \PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOD \Planning\CEOAICEOA Initial Study. doca
20
LM mn
Ppbl++y
sly14kanNWIM
lwsiho
1
Issues and Support" Infonnawn Sourona
81OMMan1
9 11
No
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a
Fire protection?
X
b
Police protection?
X
C
Schools?
X
d
Parks?
tither public facilities?
X
e
X
Comments:
14.a.b. Lass Than Significant Impact: The heliport relocation project is not anticipated to result in impacts
regarding Fire or Police protection beyond those already anticipated as a result of the previously approved
heliport once the project construction is completed. Considering both the construction of the heliport facility
and the use of the facility once completed, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the
heliport relocation project.
14.c -e. No Impact: The relocation of the heliport on the project site will not result in adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for schools, parks, or other public
facilities.
G: PIANNINGQ013 \PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOD \Planning\CEOAICEOA Initial Study. doca
20
15. RECREATION.
Was Then
AoWWily alp AMM Wlat uwnon
ll n vW swpomrg Mearrma saucer aviaceuv n alpilo" No
wow I
a
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
X
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
X
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Comments:
15.a. No Impact: The relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of relocating
the heliport on the hospital site.
15.b. No Impact: The relocation of the heliport on the hospital site does not include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment. No impacts are anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on the hospital site.
43VLANNING OMPA13-0141 UHS Heliport M0DPIannirglCEQA10EQA INtial Study. doat
21
16. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issws and SuMorting InformaWn Stmoo
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non - motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass
Less Than
gr flc nt With Lass Than
Mtlgation Sigmkont No
ncorporated_ Impact
X
b Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X
established by the county congestion management agency
for desi nated roads or highways?
c Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results X
in substantial safety risks?
d Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X
Result in inadeauate emeraencv access?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Comments
X
16.a. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not conflict with an
applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit. No impact is anticipated as a result of
relocating the heliport on the hospital site.
16.b. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not conflict with an
applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways. No impact Is anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on the hospital
site
16.c Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site may result
in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks. A Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess this potential impact in greater
detail.
16.d Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site may result
in substantially increased hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The Federal Aviation
Administration and the Caltrans Aeronautical Division have design criteria that should be followed in order to
G. IPLANNING12011~3 -0141 UHS Heliport MOntPlannmglCEOA\CEOA Initial Study.doca
22
minimize such hazards as associated with the proposed heliport facility. Although, the relocation of the heliport
is intended to increase the safety of this facility, a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess this
potential impact in greater detail.
16.e. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not result in inadequate
emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
16.f. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities. All such facilities are provided with the overall hospital project and will
not be affected by the relocation of the heliport.
G:IPLANNING120131PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MO01Planning10EQA10EQA Initial Study.docx
23
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
uw nwn
parwy sWk4Mwllh Uw T1w
Im" Ow swpor" VftW%"M s"M ►Rtlwow swft'A No
1iwi led OMWA
a
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
X
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
X
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
X
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
X
expanded entitlements needed?
e
_
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
X
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
X
accommodate the projecfs solid waste disposal needs?
g
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
X
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
17.a.b.e. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not result in the project
exceeding wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect
the capacity of treatment providers. From a wastewater generation perspective, the project is consistent with
the Development Plan for the previously approved hospital project and the previously adopted EIR and
Supplemental EIR for the project. Since the project is consistent with the previous approvals and with the
City's General Plan, relocation of the heliport on the hospital site is not anticipated to result in impacts on
wastewater treatment facilities.
17.c. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not require or result in the
construction of new storm water drainage facilities. The design of the existing storm water drainage facilities
on the hospital site is sufficient to handle the runoff from this project and will not require the expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
17.d. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not impact existing water
supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the relocation of
the heliport on the hospital site.
17.f.g. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not result in a need for new
landfill capacity. As with the location for the previously approved heliport location on the hospital site, any
potential impacts from solid waste created by the construction and operation of the heliport can be mitigated
through participation in source reduction and recycling programs, which are implemented by the City. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
G:VLANNING2013 \PA13-0141 UHS Melipod MOOkPIanninglCEOAlCEOA Initial Sludy.docx
24
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable ( "Cumulatively considerable' means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X
Comments
SVWIant WM I Leo
YNpn etb spni
X
Ll
NO
18 a. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not
degrade the quality of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory Relocation of the heliport on the
developed hospital site will improve the safety of the heliport facility but will not Impact areas of the site
previously undisturbed Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on
the existing hospital site.
18 b Less Than Significant Impact: No significant cumulative impacts have been identified with the
implementation of the proposed project.
18 c Potentially Significant Impact: With regard to environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as identified in the sections above, the proposed
relocation of the heliport may have the potential to result in the creation of light or glare, affect the safety of
people residing or working within the vicinity of the heliport, expose persons to generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local General Plan and Noise Ordinance, create a substantial
permanent. temporary, or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and to
change air traffic patterns and any potential hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use Also
Identified above. a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess these potential impacts in greater detail
G. iPLANNING120131PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport M0D1PIanning�CEDAtCEDA Initial Stody.docx
25
19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program
EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier
EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify
the following on attached sheets.
a
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook
GAPLANNING120131PA13 -0141 UHS Heliport MOMPlanninglCEQAZEQA Initial Study.dou
26
Scoping Session Notice
NOTICE OF SCOPING MEETING
FOR THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT SEIR
A SCOPING MEETING regarding the preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) for the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification has been scheduled to
give the public an opportunity to provide input on what issues should be addressed in the SEIR and to
provide input on what alternatives to the proposed project might be considered.
Subject: The Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141) project
is a proposal to modify the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and
Helistop Conditional Use Permit in response to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics
Division regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development
adjacent to the hospital site. The Major Modification would relocate the
previously approved helistop on the developed site to two new locations
including an interim location for use during Phase I and a final location on top of
a future hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase.
General Location: The Temecula Valley Hospital is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the
City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, on the north side of Temecula
Parkway, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road.
Purpose: The scoping meeting will give the public an opportunity to provide input on what
issues should be addressed in the SEIR for the Temecula Valley Hospital
Helistop Major Modification project and provide an opportunity for the public to
provide input on what alternatives to the proposed project might be considered.
Contact Persons: Stuart Fisk — (951) 506 -5159
Place of Meeting: Civic Center Conference Center
41000 Main Street
Temecula, California 92590
Date of Meeting: Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m.
Project Information: Copies of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study are available at the
City of Temecula, Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street,
Temecula, CA 92590; Temecula Public Library, 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula,
CA 92592; and the City of Temecula Website: www.cityoftemecula.org.
Please note: The Scoping Meeting is not a public hearing and NO DECISION on the proposed
Temecula Valley Hospital Major Modification project will be made at this meeting. Public testimony
is limited to the issues that need to be addressed in the SEIR.
Attachments: Project Location and Site Plan
G: \I3xs.es \D130652.00 - Temecula Heliport Supplemental EIR \03 Working Documems \Admin SEIR\Appendix A\Scoping Session Notice 12- 11- 13.doc
0 ,
Ca ... amY N arrawaufiaa 3a9pabd nw* pm� -- --
PM SM .m Saewa Paanr Pam
- - - --
1
- -.. - �--
—CAN= %Om ma6Mdfon 1pmx
Tapp" /gWM Rr3 f Gaa
Cunha
Pt tlb Ryl Ida.
e+
.P411
,1r
4
.W.'Ta s i "^'. i► .a
G:\13xwt\Dl306S2.00-Tcrncx:ula Heliport Supplemental EIR\03 Working Documents\Admin SEIR\Appendix A \Scoping Session Notice 12- 11 -13.doc
pY SgBM IM SamaMl ad /a
Tapp" /gWM Rr3 f Gaa
Cunha
aatlor. .tci
asend lwr uawon
,1r
G:\13xwt\Dl306S2.00-Tcrncx:ula Heliport Supplemental EIR\03 Working Documents\Admin SEIR\Appendix A \Scoping Session Notice 12- 11 -13.doc
Notice of Preparation Comments
� SIA
City of Temecula
Community Development
Planning Division Agency Distribution List
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PA13 -0217, a revision to a previously approved Tentative Tract
Map (T-TM 33584) to minimize retaining wall heights, balance earthwork quantities
onsite, provide a water quality basin, and to reduce the density from 62 single - family
condominium units to 59 units on a 7.24 acre site located at the northeast corner of
Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Road. An Initial study was previously circulated for
the site (SCH# 2012091020) under PA12 -0034 for a 120 unit apartment project.
DISTRIBUTION DATE: December 19, 2013
Building & Safety ...........................................
El
Fire Department .............................................
El
Police Department .........................................
❑
Parks & Recreation ( TCSD ) ...........................
❑
Planning ( Principals) ............... .. ....................
.❑
Public Works .................... ..............................®
❑
GIS................................. ...............................
❑
Architect.......................... ...............................
❑
Landscape Architect ....... ...............................
❑
Telecommunication Consultant ......................❑
CityAttorney ................... ...............................
❑
STATE:
Caltrans Districts 8 ....................................
.... ❑
Caltrans District 10 ........... ..............................❑
❑
Fish & Wildlife .................. ..............................®
❑
Mines & Geology ............ ...............................
❑
State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) ...................®
❑
Water Resources ............ ...............................
❑
FEDERAL:
❑
Army Corps of Engineers . ..............................®
❑
Fish and Wildlife Service .. ..............................®
❑
Bureau of Land Management .........................❑
❑
REGIONAL:
AQMD............................. ...............................
❑
ALUC.............................. ...............................
❑
LAFCO............................ ...............................
❑
RCA................................ ...............................
❑
RTA................................ ...............................
❑
RCTC............................................................
❑
CASE PLANNER: Stuart Fisk
RWQCB......................... ...............................
❑
SCAG............................. ...............................
❑
WRCOG......................... ...............................
❑
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ..................
❑
Riverside County EDA . ..............................❑
Engineer........................ ...............................
❑
Flood Control ................. ...............................
❑
Health Department ......... ...............................
❑
Health Department Haz Mat ..........................
❑
Parks and Recreation ..... ...............................
❑
Planning Department ..... ...............................
❑
County Geologist ........... ...............................
❑
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District ...................
Rancho CA Water District .............................
Metropolitan Water District ............................
❑
Time Warner Cable ........ ...............................
❑
Verizon........................... ...............................
❑
SoCA Gas ..................... ...............................
So CA Edison ................. ...............................
CR& R ............................. ...............................
OTHER:
TVUSD........................... ...............................
MVUSD.......................... ............................... ❑
Pechanga Indian Reservation .......................
Soboba Indian Reservation ........................... ❑
UCR Eastern Information Center ................... ❑
Robert Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive,
Temecula, CA 92592
GAPLANNING\2013 \PA13-0217 Rancho Vista Village MOD\Planning \CEQA Agency Distribution List • recirculation.00a
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
Gabbi Gatchel
Department of Fish and Wildlife
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard
C -220
Ontario, CA 91764
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Riverside Regulatory Field Office
1451 Research Park Drive #100
Riverside, CA 92507 -2154
Doreen Stadtlander
US Fish and Wildlife
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SOUTH COAST AQMD
21865 EAST COPLEY DRIVE
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 -4182
Reg. Water Quality Control Board
9174 Sky Park Court
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123 -4353
Jim Makwinski
Eastern Municipal Water District
P.O. Box 8300
Perris, CA 92572 -8300
Mike Meyerpeter
Rancho Water District
P.O. Box 9017
Temecula, CA 92589 -9017
SoCal Edison
Amanda Renteria/Kevin Bense
Wildomar S/C 1st Floor
24487 Prielipp Road
Wildomar, CA 92585
So. California Gas Company
Typree Lee
P.O. Box 3003
Redlands, CA 92373 -0306
CR &R
P.O. Box 1208
Perris, CA 92572
Susan Ryan
Temecula Valley School District
31350 Rancho Vista Road
Temecula, CA 92592
Anna Hoover
Pechanga Indian Reservation
P.O. Box 2183
Temecula, CA 92593
(a
Edmund G. Brown Jr
Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
December 2, 2013
Notice of Preparation
To: Reviewing Agencies
Re: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141)
SCH# 2013121007
Ken Alex
Director
Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Temecula Valley Hospital
Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141) draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific
information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead
Aeencv. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a
timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concems early in the
environmental review process.
Please direct your comments to:
Stuart Fisk
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Terecula, CA 92590
with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number
noted above in all correspondence concerning this project.
If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at
(916) 445 -0613.
Sincerely,
v y�
Morgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Lead Agency
1100 - P:S'rH STREell PO ROX 3044 SACi{AN_EN tO, CA L,i ORN[A 95! 12"144
TEL (Alt ;) 445.06:3 FAX(916)32330!9 ,w.npr ca go,
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2013121007
Project Title Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13 -0141)
Lead Agency Temecula, City of
Type NOP Notice of Preparation
Description A Major Modification application for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Helislop
Conditional Use Permit in response to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations, safety
factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. The Major Modification would
relocate the previously approved helistop on the developed site to two new locations including an
interim location for use during Phase I and a final location on top of a future hospital tower when it is
constructed during a later phase.
Lead Agency Contact
Name
Stuart Fisk
Agency
City of Temecula
Phone
951 5065159
email
Address
41000 Main Street
City
Temecula
Fax
State CA
Zip 92590
Project Location
County Riverside
City Temecula
Region
Cross Streets
Lat /Long
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use
Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Forest Land /Fire Hazard; Noise; Traffic/Circulation
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6;
Agencies Native American Heritage Commission; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Caltrans, District 6; Air
Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Statewide Health Planning
Date Received 12/02/2013 Start of Review 12/02/2013 End of Review 12/31/2013
NOP Distribution List
❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 1E
tesources Agency Laurie Harnsberger
Resources Agency
Nadel) Gayou
❑ Dept. of Boating &
Waterways
Nicole Wong
❑ California Coastal
Commission
Elizabeth A. Fuchs
❑ Colorado River Board
Tamya Trujillo
❑ Dept. of Conservation
Elizabeth Carpenter
❑ California Energy
Commission
Eric Knight
❑ Cal Fire
Dan Foster
❑ Central Valley Flood
Protection Board
James Herota
❑ Office of Historic
Preservation
Ron Parsons
® Dept of Parks & Recreation
Environmental Stewardship
Section
❑ California Department of
Resources, Recycling &
Recovery
Sue O'Leary
❑ S.F. Bay Conservation &
Dev't. Comm.
Steve McAdam
❑ Dept. of Water
Resources Resources
Agency
Nadell Gayou
:ish and Game
❑ Depart. of Fish & Wildlife
Scott Flint
Environmental Services Division
❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 1
Donald Koch
Fish & Wildlife Region 2
Jeff Drongesen
❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 3
Charles Armor
❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 4
Julie Vance
❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 5
Leslie Newton -Reed
Habitat Conservation Program
® Fish & Wildlife Region 6
Gabrina Gatchel
Habitat Conservation Program
U Fish & Wildlife Rnplon 6 I/M
Heidi Sickler
Inyo /Mono, Habitat Conservation
Program
❑ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife M
George Isaac
Marine Region
Other Departments
❑ Food S. Agriculture
Sandra Schubert
Dept. of Food and Agriculture
❑ Depart. of General
Services
Public School Construction
❑ Dept. of General Services
Anna Garberf
Environmental Services Section
❑ Dept. of Public Health
Jeffery Worth
Dept. of Health /Drinking Water
❑ Delta Stewardship
Council
Kevan Samsam
Independent
Commissions. Boards
❑ Delta Protection
Commission
Michael Machado
❑ Cal EMA (Emergency
Management Agency)
Dennis Caslrillo
County:
Native American Heritage
® Caltrans, District 8
Comm.
Dan Kopulsky
Debbie Treadway
❑
❑
Caltrans, District 9
Public Utilities
Gayle Rosander
Commission
❑ Caltrans, District 10
Leo Wong
loin Dumas
Santa Monica Bay Restoration
❑ Caltrans, District 11
Guangyu Wang
Jacob Armstrong
State Lands Commission
❑ Caltrans, District 12
Jennifer Deleong
Maureen El Harake
Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency(TRPA)
Cherry Jacques
Business. Trans & Housin
L1eJ Caitrans - Division of
Aeronautics
Philip Crimmins
❑ Caltrans - Planning
Terri Pencovic
❑ California Highway Patrol
Suzann Ikeuchi
Office of Special Projects
❑ Housing & Community
Development
CEQA Coordinator
Housing Policy Division
Dept. of Transportation
❑ Caltrans, District 1
Rex Jackman
❑ Caltrans, District 2
Marcelino Gonzalez
❑ Caltrans, District 3
Gary Arnold
❑ Caltrans, District 4
Erik Alm
❑ Caltrans, District 5
David Murray
❑ Caltrans, District
Michael Navarro
❑ Caltrans, District 7
Dianna Watson
Cal EPA
Air Resources Board
® All Projects
CEQA Coordinator
❑ Transportation Projects
Jon Taylor
❑ Industrial Projects
Mike I ollstmp
rep .6" 1-- -Kcu ru=wf wb
SCH#
Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
❑ State Water Resources Control
Board
Regional Programs Unit
Division of Financial Assistance
❑ Stale Water Resources Control
Board
Student Intern, 401 Water Quality
Certification Unit
Division of Water Quality
❑ Stale Water Resouces Control
Board
Phil Crader
Division of Water Rights
Ll Dept. or Toxic Substances
Control
CEQA Tracking Center
❑ Department of Pesticide
Regulation
CEQA Coordinator
❑ RWQCI3 1
Cathleen Hudson
North Coast Region (1)
❑ RWQCB2
Environmental Document
Coordinator
San Francisco Bay Region (2)
❑ RWOC13 3
Central Coast Region (3)
❑ RWQCB4
Teresa Rodgers
Los Angeles Region (4)
❑ RWQCB 5S
Central Valley Region (5)
❑ RWQCB 5F-
Central Valley Region (5)
Fresno Branch Office
❑ RWQCB 511
Central Valley Region (5)
Redding Branch Office
❑ RWQCB6
I
La�honlan Region (6)
Ll RWQCB 6v
Lahonlan Region (6)
Victorville Branch Office
❑ RWQC87
Colorado River Basin Region (7)
G RWQCB6
Santa Ana Region (8)
® RWQCB9
San Diego Region (9)
r� r
G" Other
❑
Conservancy
Last Updated 9124/2013
STATE OF CALIFORNIA a a z .� Edmund 0.9rol
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION o w.
1650 es Mupp arto CAC Sulu 100
West S 3-3715 m CA 9569
Fax ( 16)37 S
Fax (S,te , }51 )'.
Wen She .
0s ad dl pacOL
P -p
�Ta�l tls nahc�artiW.l net
December 6. 2013
Mr Stuart Fisk, AICP, Planner
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: SCH #2013121007, CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP). draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the "Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop
Major Modification (PA13- 0141); located in the City of Temecula:
Riverside County, California
Dear Mr Fisk
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the
above - referenced environmental document.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any project
which includes archeological resources, is a significant effect requiring the
preparation of an EIR (CEQA guidelines 15064.5(b) To adequately comply with
this provision and mitigate project- related impacts on archaeological resources,
the Commission recommends the following actions be required:
Contact the appropriate Information Center for a record search to
determine if a part or all of the area of project effect (APE) has been previously
surveyed for cultural places(s). The NAHC recommends that known traditional
cultural resources recorded on or adjacent to the APE be listed in the draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
If an additional archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage
is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and
recommendations of the records search and field survey. We suggest that this
be coordinated with the NAHC, if possible The final report containing site forms.
site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to
the planning department All information regarding site locations Native
American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a
separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure
pursuant to California Government Code Section 6254.10.
A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning
the project site has been provided and is attached to this letter to determine if the
proposed active might impinge on any cultural resources Lack of surface
evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface
existence.
California Government Code Section 65040.12(e) defines 'environmental justice" to
provide 'fair treatment of People with respect to the development, adoption,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies" and
Executive Order B -10 -11 requires consultation with Native American tribes their elected
officials and other representatives of tribal governments to provide meaningful input into
the development of legislation regulations rules and policies on matters that may affect
tribal communities
Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the
identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources,
pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 7050 5 and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5(f) In areas of identified
archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated
Native American. with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all
ground- disturbing activities. Also California Public Resources Code Section
21083.2 require documentation and analysis of archaeological items that meet
the standard in Section 15064 5 (a)(b)(f).
Lead agencies should consider first, avoidance for sacred and /or historical
sites. pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15370(a) Then if the project goes ahead
then, lead agencies include in their mitigation plan provisions for the analysis and
disposition of recovered artifacts, pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2 in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans
Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American
human remains in their mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA
§15064.5(e). and Public Resources Code §5097.98 mandates the process to be
followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a
location other than a dedicated cemetery
Sincerely,
Dave Singleton
Program Analyst
CC State Clearinghouse
Attachment: Native American Contacts list
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 917654178
(909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov
tit December 13, 2013
Stuart Fisk -
City of Temecula 1
Community Development Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Notice of Preparation of a CEQA Document for the
Temecula Valle-, llosnital Helistoo Maior Modification Proiect
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
above- mentioned document. The SCAQMD stairs comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential
air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the draft CEQA document. Please send the
SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. Vote that copies of the Draft EIR that are submitted to the
State Clearinghouse are not forwarded to the SCAQMD. Please forward a copy of the Draft EIR directly to SCAQMD
at the address in our letterhead. In addition, please send with the draft FIR all appendices or technical documents
related to the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and
health risk assessment riles. These include original emission calculation spreadsheets and modeling files not
Adobe PDF files). Without all files and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD will be unable to
complete its review of the air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting air
quality documentation will reuuire additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period.
Air Ouslity Analysis
The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist
other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency
use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the
SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. More recent guidance developed since this
Handbook was published is also available on SCAQMD's website here: www.aamd.2ov /ccoa/hdbILhtmi. SCAQMD
staff also recommends that the lead agency use the CaIEEMod land use emissions software. This software has recently
been updated to incorporate up-to -date state and locally approved emission factors and methodologies for estimating
pollutant emissions from typical land use development. CalEEMod is the only software model maintained by the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and replaces the now outdated URBEMIS. This
model is available free of charge at: www.calcernod.com.
The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the
project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including
demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction - related air quality impacts typically include, but
are not limited lo, emissions from the use of heavy -duty equipment from grading, earth- loading/unloading, paving,
architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources
(e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation - related air quality impacts may include,
but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and
vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources,
that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis.
The SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD staff requests
that the lead agency quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare the results to the recommended regional
significance thresholds found here: hllp:i /www.aumd.eov /ccga haudbook/sianthres.pdf. In addition to analyzing
regional air quality impacts, the SCAQMD staff recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing
the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional
significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore,
Stuart Fisk -2- December 13, 2013
when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a
localized analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as
necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at:
httpl/www.Mmd.w,ov/cNa/bandbook/LST/LST.himi.
In the event that the proposed project generates or attracts vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel - fueled vehicles,
it is recommended that the lead agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a
mobile source health risk assessment ( "Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Lancer Risk from Mobile
Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis ") can be found at:
htto : / /www.aamd.tov /ceaa0handbook, 'mobile„ toxicimobile toxic.himl. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant
impacts due to the use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included.
In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing homes near freeways) can be found in the
California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. A Community Perspective, which can be
found at the following intemet address: htip : / /www.arb.ca.itov /cWbaWbook.odf. CARB's Land Use Handbook is a
general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through
the land use decision- making process.
Mitigation Measures
In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible
mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to
minimize or eliminate these impacts. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (axl)(D), any impacts resulting
from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Several resources are available to assist the Lead Agency with
identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, including:
• Chapter 11 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
• SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at: www. aamd. eov /ceaa%"book/mitieation/MM intro.html
• CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mirigation Measures available here:
htlp://www.calKoa.oriz/wpconiciit/uploads/2010/1 I/CAPCOA-(hmtification-Reggrt-9-14-Final. p�
• SCAQMD's Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook for controlling construction- related
emissions
• Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance
Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be
found at the following Internet address: hslp: // www. aumd, yov /ordas/aueuide/aaguide.html.
Data Soerca
SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information
Center at (909) 396 -2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available
via the SCAQMD's webpage (http:l /www.aumd.eov).
The SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project emissions are accurately
evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at
imacmillan(aaamd.gov or call me at (909) 396 -3244.
Sincerely,
,/ v,
Ian MacMillan
Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter - Governmental Review
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
1A%4JRlK*1r,L
tfn C
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
December 9, 2013
CHAIR
Since Housman
Rancho Mirage Mr. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner
VICE CHAIRMAN City of Temecula Community Development Department
Rod soiano 41000 Main Street
Riv de Temecula, CA 92590
ca "RISK Edre RE : City Project Number PA 13 -0141 Major Modification and Supplemental F.IR
Aftur ButW
Rvemde Dear Mr. Fisk:
John Lyon
Rn da Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Notice of Preparation of a Draft
Glen Hol0m Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project referenced above.
Hen* (Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification). We support the City's decision to
Gr" Peft require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this project addressing aesthetics,
Came" c*y hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation and traffic, and mandatory findings of
Richard*mKt significance.
Moreno vsky
STAFF The project team has submitted an application for review of this proposed project by the
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), in accordance with state
Ed cow requirements, and ALUC staff awaits completion of the noise analysis prior to its evaluation
of the proposed location and flight paths for consistency with Countywide noise compatibility
John Guam criteria.
Ruxell Brady
Barbera Samoa
ovryA> a.ssnorr If you have any questions, please contact John Guerin, Principal Planner, at (951) 955 -0982.
=larm8 -10F]w
r sw ausr Sincerely,
Innsssslu Y•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
14w4ardC. Cootyes. irect
Jeff Wright, Heliplanners
Rene Escario, ESA — San Diego office
Y: \AIRPORT CASE FILES \French Valley\ ..AP1054FV13 \Temecu[aPA13 -0141 HospHeliport NOP
Resp.doc
12/18/2013
Resident Comments and Suggestion to Temecula Valley Hospital
Helistop Major Modification Project (PA13 -0141)
1. While the new sites and the new flying paths of the proposed Major Modification for
the Helistop project appear to be somewhat an improvement to those of the original
proposal, they clearly have not mitigated nor have addressed the project's inherent
adversity on the community in terms of safety, noise and pollution.
For example, the fact that the new "interim" site appears to be less than 50 yards away
from residential homes (and an even shorter distance from a community horse trail) is by
itself an unsafe and unacceptable proposition. Please note a helicopter produces
continuous noise up to 105dB that is twice as loud as ajackhammer. Such noise will be
detrimental to the health of those who live immediately around the hospital. There are
also many other adverse effects that are intrinsic to a "ground level" heliport such as dust,
rotor vibration, landing lights, pollution, safety hazards etc, all of which will drastically
and permanently deplete the quality of life of surrounding neighborhoods.
Also an "interim" measure that is to be lasted for 5 years (until a scheduled completion of
Phase II in 2019) is for all intents and purposes "permanent ", including of its damage to
the community! It certainly says a lot about the carelessness of the developer toward its
neighbors.
For the scope of current SEIR, 1 urge the City to at least scrape the "interim" site from
consideration, concentrating instead on the study of the viability of the "final" site.
2. I further propose the City to use this Major Modification process as an opportunity to
reexamine the validity and the legitimacy of the whole Hospital Helistop project. Here
are some facts warrants for our serious consideration:
a. Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Medical helicopter
is usually 3 to 4 times the size and weight of police helicopter and Flies much
closer to the ground than its law enforcement counterpart. Statistics show one in
ten of all medical helicopter crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these
crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. Medical helicopter poses real hazard
to public safety.
b. Helicopters are noisy, especially medical helicopters. While the city's outdoor
noise limit is 65dB, helicopter in average produces noise up to 105dB. And unlike
ambulance siren there's no way to turn off the "noise" of a helicopter in
operation. The proposed heliport poses a direct threat to the health of residents in
the surrounding neighborhoods.
c. Studies and statistics show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more
lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that
when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect
the estimated odds of survival.
d. The fact that Temecula Valley Hospital is not a trauma center raises even more
questions about the need and the justification of helicopter facility, especially
when considering all the negative impacts the surrounding neighborhoods have to
put up with for such a facility.
While people recognize the Temecula Valley Hospital itself as a plus to the community,
to automatically assume a piggybacked heliport as an added plus is a dangerous
generalization that betrays facts and logics. We need to evaluate the Helistop project by
its own merit from a localized perspective with clearly defined purpose, weighing
carefully the known detriments of such facility against its purported benefit.
Steve Chen
Resident at 44501 Verde Drive, Temecula.
From: Allen, Christopher [mailto:christooher allen(cDfws.00v]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 1:52 PM
To: Stuart Fisk
Subject: Final: FWS- WRIV- 14B0143-14CPA0108 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification
Project
Final Reference: FWS- WRIV - 1460143- 14CPA0108
Dear Mr. Fisk,
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (Project), which
we received on December 10, 2013. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public
fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory
birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also
responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seg.).
On June 22, 2004, the Service issued a section 10(a)(1)(13) permit for the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP established a multiple species conservation
program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with
activities covered under the permit. Permittees ensure covered activities are consistent with the MSHCP, its
associated Implementing Agreement, and section 10(a)(1)(13) permit. The Service is providing the following
comments as they relate to the Project's consistency with the MSHCP.
The project is located within the City of Temecula. Specifically, the site is situated east of Dona Lynora Road,
north of the Highway 79 south, west of Redhawk Parkway, and south of De Portola Road. The site is located
within the MSHCP boundary and is not within any Criteria Cells. The proposed project includes the
development of a helicopter landing facility to the west of the Temecula Valley Hospital main campus.
The project is located within the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) area for
Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunictdaria hypugaea, burrowing owl). The project site may have potential to
support suitable habitat for burrowing owl. According to the documentation provided, the project includes the
use of grading activities. We request clarification regarding the status of burrowing owl within the proposed
project footprint. Consistent with the MSHCP, if burrowing owl surveys have not been completed, we
recommend conducting surveys using an approved protocol prior to project implementation. In addition, we
recommend conducting burrowing owl pre - construction presence absence surveys within 30 days of project
ground disturbing activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions or comments about this letter or the MSHCP in
general, please contact Chris Allen of the Service at 760 - 322 -2070, extension 215.
Sincerely,
Christopher Allen
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
777 Tahquitz Canyon Drive Suite 208
Palm Springs, CA 92262
T: 760.322.2070, ext. 215
E: christopher allen @fws.gov
Appendix B
Noise Impact Analysis
F7- � SSA
Appendix B
Noise Impact Analysis
F E,1151 ;0
d
Temecula Valley Hospital, Helistop Relocation
Helistop Noise Analysis
Prepared for January 2014
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula. CA 92590
F' ESA
A
Acronym List
ANEP
Arrival Northeast Point -track
ASWP
Arrival Southwest Point -track
CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB
decibel
DNEP
Departure Northeast Point -track
DSWP
Departure Southwest Point -track
EC
Eurocopter
INM
Integrated Noise Model
MSL
mean sea level
RCALUCP
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
SEIR
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
UHS
Universal Health Services
HELISTOP NOISE ANALYSIS
Temecula Valley Hospital, Helistop Relocation
Project Overview
Universal Health Services (UHS) is proposing a major modification to the Temecula Regional
Hospital, now referred to as the Temecula Valley Hospital (Hospital), to provide adjustments to
the design and operations of the approved, but undeveloped helistop facility at the hospital. The
Hospital is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula (City) in Riverside
County. The site is located on the north side of Temecula Parkway (also identified as Highway 79
South), south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The land
uses in the vicinity of the hospital campus are as follows:
• To the north and northwest, the land uses include undeveloped land and single- family
residences, respectively.
• To the southwest and southeast, beyond Temecula Parkway the land uses include single -
family residences and commercial properties, respectively.
• To the west, the land use is professional medical offices.
• To the east, the land uses include multi - family residential, commercial and medical uses,
as well as a flood control channel.
The Hospital began operations in October 2013 and as previously approved, is being constructed
and operated in several phases. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously
approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project
phases that would be removed when the permanent location is constructed on top of the future
hospital tower, during a later phase of the project. The change in location of the helistops, and the
potential impacts related to those new locations, requires preparation of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). This analysis quantifies the noise exposure of both the
interim and future helistop conditions.
Methodology
Integrated Noise Model
The Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 7.0d, has been used to quantify helicopter noise
exposure in the vicinity of the interim and future helistop locations. The INM is the FAA -
approved noise model for quantifying fixed -wing and rotorcraft noise. The model input requires
Temecula Valley Hospital Hallstop Relocation ESA Alrpom l 130652
January 2014
Noise
information specific to each helistop including the total number of helicopter operations, the
flight paths used to access the helistop, the specific helicopter types, and the time of day at which
the operations occur.
The INM works by defining a network of grid points at ground level. It then selects the shortest
distance from each grid point to each flight track and computes the noise exposure generated by
each helicopter (or aircraft) operation, along each flight track. Corrections are applied for
atmospheric acoustical attenuation, acoustical shielding of the engines by the helicopter, and
speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each operation are then summed at each grid
location. The cumulative noise exposure levels at all grid points are then used to develop
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours for selected values (e.g. 55, 60 and 65 dB
CNEL). Using the results of the grid point analysis, noise contours of equal noise exposure are
then plotted. The INM includes the ability to model the effects of changes in ground elevations
(terrain), but does not include the ability to account for shielding or reflectivity of noise from
buildings or other structures, or non- aircraft generated noise sources.
Characteristics of Sound
Sound can be technically described in terms of its sound pressure (amplitude) and frequency
(similar to pitch).
Amplitude is a direct measure of the magnitude, or loudness, of a sound without consideration for
other factors that may influence its perception. The ranges of sound pressures that occur in the
environment are so large that they are expressed on a logarithmic scale. The standard unit of
measurement of sound is the decibel (dB). A sound pressure level in dB describes the pressure of
a sound relative to a reference pressure. By using a logarithmic scale, the wide range in sound
pressures is compressed to a more usable range of numbers.
For example, a sound level of 70 dB has 10 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB, while a
sound level of 80 dB has 100 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB. In terms of human
response to noise, the perception of changes in noise level is very different. A sound 10 dB higher
than another sound is usually judged to be twice as loud. A sound 20 dB higher is judged four
times as loud and so forth. Therefore, due to the logarithmic nature of sound, linear addition
cannot be applied when combining two noise levels. For instance, 50 dB CNEL plus 50 dB
CNEL would not equal 100 dB CNEL. Rather, it would equal 53 dB CNEL due to the
logarithmic scale of decibels. The combination of two noise levels is achieved by converting the
noise levels into acoustic energy, adding the energy together, and then applying a logarithmic
function to convert the resulting value back into a decibel value. The following table illustrates
the principal of decibel addition.
TemeWa Valley Hospital HeOSWp Relocation 2 ESA Alryons 1130652
January 2014
Noise
Difference
Amount
between two
added to
decibel values
ht her value
J of
3
2or3
2
4to9
1
10 or more
0
Source: United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety & Health Administration,
v osha .govldtslosta /otnVndselhealth effectsldecibels.html, accessed January 10, 2014.
Cumulative Noise Metrics
Cumulative noise metrics have been developed to assess community response to noise. They are
useful because these scales attempt to include the loudness of the noise, the duration of the noise,
the total number of noise events, and the time of day these events occur into one single number
rating scale.
Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations specifies the use of CNEL for
quantifying cumulative aircraft noise exposure. CNEL is the 24 -hour average sound level
in decibels with an additional weighting placed on evening (7:00:00 pm — 9:59:59 pm)
and nighttime (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 am) operations to account for the increased
sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. CNEL metric and the evening
and nighttime weightings are described in detail in the "Time of Day" section below.
The UHS helistop planning consultant, Heliplanners, provided the information needed to generate
the CNEL contours. Additional information was obtained from the previously prepared EIRs. The
specific data used to model the CNEL contours is described in the following sections.
Helicopter Operations and Fleet
Based on the helicopter operations data provided, two primary local operators, Mercy Air and
REACH Air Medical Services, would access the helistop eight times per month during a twelve
month period, accounting for a total of 96 flights or 192 operations (one flight equals two
operations: an arrival and a departure). Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations
and Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 require that the CNEL contours be based on the annual -
average day operations over a 365 -day period. This equals approximately 0.526 operations per
annual- average day. The hospital improvements (i.e., the decommissioning of the interim helistop
and operation of permanent helistop) are not expected to result in an increase in the number of
helicopters utilizing the helistop. Thus, the same numbers of operations were used to calculate the
noise exposure for both the interim and permanent helistop locations.
The type of helicopter that would utilize the interim and permanent helistops is the Eurocopter
135 (EC -135), which currently does not have a noise profile in the INM. However, the EC -130 is
an appropriate substitute for the EC -135 and was used to model the EC -135 operations.
Temew Val Hasp" HNisbp F.Ipc.em 3 ESA l rl l 130652
January 2014
Helistop Noise Analysis
A detailed breakdown of the annual - average day operations for the interim and future helistop
locations is included in Table 1.
TABLE 1
ANNUAL- AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS
INM Helicopter Type Helicopter Type Daytime
Evening
Nighttime Total
Operations
Operations
Operations
EC -130 EC -135 0.421
0.053
0.053 0.526
Total 0.421
0.053
0.053 0.526
Individual operations numbers may not sum to the total due to rounding
Source: Heliplanners, ESA Airports Analysis, 2013
Time of Day
As noted previously, the separation of helicopter operations into daytime (7:00:00 am to 6:59:59
pm), evening (7:00:00 pm to 9:59:59 pm), and nighttime (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 am) is important
because the INM includes an additional weighting during the evening and nighttime hours to
account for the increased sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. Evening
operations are weighted as three daytime operations and nighttime operations are weighted as ten
daytime operations. This results in a 4.77 and 10- decibel penalty for each event during these
periods, respectively. The time of day that each operation occurred was noted in the data provided
by 1-leliplanners and summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2
HELICOPTER OPERATION TIMES OF DAY (CNEL)
INM Helicopter Daytime
Evening
Nighttime
Type (7:00:00 am — 6:59:59
(7:00:00 pm — 9:59:59
(10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 Total
pm)
pm)
am)
EC -130 80.0%
10.0%
10.0% 100.0%
Source: Heliplanners, 2013
Flight Corridors
The flight corridors used to access the helistops are an important factor in determining the
geographic distribution of noise on the ground. Flight corridors for helicopter operations were
modeled for the north -flow and south -flow configurations for both the interim and permanent
conditions. Flight corridor use percentages were derived from information provided by
Heliplanners. Based on this data, use percentages were developed for north -Flow and south -flow
operations. Using this information, four primary arrival and departure corridors were developed
for the interim condition. When operating in a north Flow configuration, arrivals would Fly a true
heading of 213° to the helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 33'. Figure 1
depicts the interim helistop north -Flow flight corridors. When operating in a south -flow
configuration, arrivals would Fly a true heading of 48° to the helistop, while departures would fly
a true heading of 228'. Figure 2 depicts the interim helistop south -flow Flight corridors.
Future operations were modeled to and from the future permanent helistop. When operating in a
north -Flow configuration, arrivals would Fly a true heading of 218° to the helistop, while
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 4 ESA Airports /130652
January 2014
Noise
departures would fly a true heading of 38'. Figure 3 depicts the permanent helistop north -flow
flight corridors. When operating in a south -flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading
of 49° to the helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 229 °. Figure 4 depicts the
permanent helistop south -flow flight corridors.
Flight corridor use percentages have been assigned according to the data received from
Heliplanners and are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
TABLE 3
EC -135 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES
INTERIM CONDITION
Departures
Arrivals
Corridor Day Evening
Night Corridor
Day
Evening
Night
DNEP 10.0% 10.0%
10.0% ANEP
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
DSWP 90.0% 90.0%
90.0% ASWP
10.0%
10.0°/
10.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0
Source: Heliplanners, 2013
DINER Departure Northeast Point -track
DSWP: Departure Southwest Point -track
ANEP: Arrival Northeast Point -track
ASWP: Arrival Southwest Point -track
TABLE 4
EC -135 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES
FUTURE CONDITION
Departures
Arrivals
Corridor Day Evening
Night Corridor
Day
Evening
Night
DNEP 10.0% 10.0%
10.0% ANEP
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
DSWP 90.0% 90.0%
90.0% ASWP
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0%
100.0% Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0
CNEL Contours
The interim helistop is located at ground level on the western side of the hospital property at an
elevation of 1,060 feet mean sea level (MSL). The permanent helistop is planned to be located on
top of a future second hospital tower at an elevation of 1,135 feet MSL. Using the INK the 55 -65
dB CNEL contours have been prepared for the interim and permanent helistop locations and are
shown on Figures 5 and 6, respectively.' The CNEL contours shown on Figures 5 and 6 depict
noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting
from non- aircraft sources. The interim 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 2.6
acres and the future 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 3.2 acres. While the total
operations, time of day, and helicopter types operating at the hospital are not expected to change
as a result of the modifications to the hospital campus, the contours are different in size and
location due to the change in pad location, change in elevation, and the use of unique flight paths
in the interim and permanent condition. For example, the CNEL contours for the permanent
I Due to their small size (i.e., less than 0.0 acres), the 70 and 75 dB CNEL contours were omitted from Figures 5 and 6.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 5 ESA Airports 1130652
January 2014
Helistop Noise Analysis
helistop location are larger than the interim helistop location because the increased elevation
reduces the effect of ground attenuation that occurs with helicopter operations close to the
ground. The reduced ground attenuation allows the sound to propagate further than the interim
helipad at ground level. Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act established that areas
exposed to aircraft noise levels less than 65 dB CNEL are consider compatible with residential
uses. The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the proposed project shown in Figures 5
and 6 are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, no residential areas would
experience a significant noise impact from the proposed helistop facilities as defined by Title 21
of the State Aeronautics Act.
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (RCALUCP) criteria for noise
defines 60 dB CNEL as the maximum allowable CNEL for new residential land uses in the
vicinity of airports or helistops. For other noise sensitive land uses including hotels, places of
worship, meeting halls, office buildings, etc., the RCALUCP defines 65 dB CNEL as the
maximum allowable noise exposure level. The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the
proposed project are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, no residential areas
would experience a significant noise impact as defined by Table 2B in the RCALUCP.
For construction of new or expanded airports or heliports, the RCALUCP identifies significant
impacts resulting from the proposed action using three criteria: for locations having an existing
ambient noise level of 55 dB CNEL or less, an increase of 5 -dB or more is deemed significant;
for locations having an existing ambient noise level between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, an increase of
3 -dB or more is deemed significant; and for locations having an existing ambient noise level of
more than 60 dB CNEL, an increase of 1.5 -dB or more is deemed significant. Table 5 below was
taken from the previous SEIR conducted in January of 2008. As part of the SEIR, noise
monitoring was performed at five locations (see Figure 7) to determine the ambient noise levels
in proximity to the hospital. The INM was used to calculate the helicopter - generated CNEL at
each of the measurement locations. The measured and ambient CNEL values were then compared
to determine if these locations would experience an increase in a CNEL of 3 -dB or more at Sites
1 and 3, and 1.5 -dB or more at Sites 2 and 5. As shown in Tables 6 and 7, Sites I and 3 did not
experience an increase of 3 -dB, nor did Sites 2 and 5 experience an increase of 1.5dB from the
interim or permanent helistop operation. Therefore, no residential areas would experience a
significant increase in noise as defined by Section 5.1.2 of the RCALUCP.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocabon 6 ESA Airpoos 1130652
January 2014
Helistop Noise Analysis
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Location Measurement
Number Location Description Period
Measured Average
Noise Level, dB(A)
AMBIENT
CNEL, dB
1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours
45.2 -59.3
59.8
2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours
48.8 -62.3
62.8
3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours
45.2 -59.2
57.8
On project site, at offset of
4 proposed five -story bed tower 20 minutes
50.3
N/A
31602 Calle Los Padres
5 24 hours
(adjacent to Highway 79)
47.0 -57.9
60.8
NOTES:
61.0
+0.2
Ambient Samples collected by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17 and 18, 2007.
A 24 -hour noise measurement was not obtained at location p4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for
the equipment.
Instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Models 712,
820, and 870) and
an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL200).
the equipment.
Instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level
All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4 -1971.
820, and 870) and
SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007.
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR
THE INTERIM CONDITION
Site Site Measurement AMBIENT Helicopter
Number Description /Address Period CNEL, dB CNEL, dB
Combined
Ambient and
Helicopter
CNEL, dB
Difference
Between
Ambient and
Combined
Helicopter
CNEL, dB
1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.8 26.9
59.8
0.0
2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 62.8 46.6
62.9
+0.1
3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 57.8 387
57.9
+0.1
On project site, at offset
4 of proposed five -story 20 minutes N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
bed tower
31602 Calle Los Padres
5 24 hours 60.8 47.2
(adjacent to Highway 79)
61.0
+0.2
NOTES:
Ambient Samples collected by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17 and 18, 2007.
A 24 -hour noise measurement was not obtained at location N4 due to the inability to provide
adequate security for
the equipment.
Instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level
meters (Models 712,
820, and 870) and
an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL200).
All instrumentation meets the requirements of Me American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4 -1971.
SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007, ESA Airports Analysis.
Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 7 ESA Air ons 1 130652
January 2014
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR
THE PERMANENT CONDITION
31602 Calle Los
5 Padres (adjacent 24 hours 60.8 41.2 60.8 0.0
to Highway 79)
NOTES'.
Ambient Samples collected by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17 and 18, 2007.
A 24 -hour noise measurement was not obtained at location #4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for the equipment.
Instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Models 712, 820, and 870) and
an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL200).
All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4 -1971.
SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007, ESA Airports Analysis.
For non - aircraft noise sources, the City of Temecula's Noise Ordinance and General Plan criteria
set noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium- intensity housing,
and 70 dB CNEL for multi- family housing. With respect to aircraft- related noise, the City's Noise
Ordinance and General Plan set the maximum acceptable noise exposure for new residential
development at 60 dB CNEL. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, the 60 dB CNEL contours resulting
from the proposed actions are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, no
residential land uses would experience a significant noise impact as defined by the City of
Temecula's Noise Ordinance and General Plan.
Mitigation: None required.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Relocation 8 ESA Airports / 130652
January 2014
Combined
Difference
Site
Site Description/
Measurement
AMBIENT
Helicopter
Ambientand
Between
Number
Address
Period
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
Helicopter
Ambient and
CNEL, dB
Helicopter
CNEL, dB
1
30390 De Portola
Road
24 hours
59.8
23.9
59.8
0.0
2
30955 De Portola
24 hours
62.S
43.9
62.9
+0.1
Road
3
31775 De Portola
24 hours
57.8
43.7
58.0
+0.2
Road
On project site, at
offset of proposed
4
five -story bed
20 minutes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
tower
31602 Calle Los
5 Padres (adjacent 24 hours 60.8 41.2 60.8 0.0
to Highway 79)
NOTES'.
Ambient Samples collected by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17 and 18, 2007.
A 24 -hour noise measurement was not obtained at location #4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for the equipment.
Instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Models 712, 820, and 870) and
an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL200).
All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4 -1971.
SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007, ESA Airports Analysis.
For non - aircraft noise sources, the City of Temecula's Noise Ordinance and General Plan criteria
set noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium- intensity housing,
and 70 dB CNEL for multi- family housing. With respect to aircraft- related noise, the City's Noise
Ordinance and General Plan set the maximum acceptable noise exposure for new residential
development at 60 dB CNEL. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, the 60 dB CNEL contours resulting
from the proposed actions are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, no
residential land uses would experience a significant noise impact as defined by the City of
Temecula's Noise Ordinance and General Plan.
Mitigation: None required.
Temecula Valley Hospital Hellstop Relocation 8 ESA Airports / 130652
January 2014
A •` ,
7/
•
C
t .-
Interim Helistop •., 4y
Q ST(J
41
SOURCE: ESAAirp". 2013: INM 7.0d; USDA, 2012
--Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652
Figure 1
Interim Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors
"f.
..
Legend
�.
•
Flight Corridors
Arrivals
•
,
- Departures
�!�• '"�
• . •
,r~a
�� A'r�, •::
Feet
�'}
7 a:.
:p�
SOURCE: ESAAirp". 2013: INM 7.0d; USDA, 2012
--Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652
Figure 1
Interim Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors
10
r t "
ox
+ 1
" i A
\ Semec 18 Park,NaY
r \ \A
�W
Legend
Flight Corridors ,
- Arrivals
- Departures
F
0 1,000
Feet
RP
nh
a
"IntenmHelistop� w't n
a
SOURCE: ESAAirports, 2013: INM 7.0d; USDA, 2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SE IR. 130652
Figure 2
Interim Helistop - South -Flow Flight Corridors
,F \lv r ,}w
'`
�' ft. � a•R IF
• r }: Ali v. �, ,3FF.
f
Oe P 1t�\A' e i, ^ti 4•J S teR` Uta Pack waY
i
�,, •• t.. Permanent Helistop
�'ri r 1 •� L
,
'�i. 14 , J l •l
..... . ..... • `.e
Legend ? ...I f ��w. • '. �. .
Flight Corridors + r � +�" ` -= � :.�',F ..'
- Arrivals ,Y.'s : Al
`
- Departures... _ .•:. •..� r '�
u
1,000
Feet t' �'S ^ b ► a!� -
SOURCE: ESAAlrporu, 2013: INM 7.ed; USDA, 2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR A 30652
Figure 3
Permanent Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors
SOURCE: ESAAltports, 2013: INM 7.0d: USDA. 2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop SEIR A 30652
Figure 4
Permanent Helistop - South -Flow Flight Corridors
ypi -iaj _
to
•' s t a� .
� � ♦ • i
r
lo
V
Legend
CNEL Contours t i • 1P, x
55 dB •
O 60 dB
65 dB� "
Hospital Campus:
Noise Sensitive
Land Use
0 500
6 � ""D //►
Feet ..rq�r ,toil°
e Pp1tOt Yµd
°, rt
I ,
M�
' t
i •a' 1
•
Interim Hehstop
:_
t,=
1
�t
SOURCE: ESAAirpons. 2013: INM Tod: City of TemecWa; USDA, 2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop SE IR. 130652
NOTE: The CNEL cordoum depict IM nose exposure from helicopter operetans Figure 5
any and do not represent the raise exwsum oesulting from ^°^-aircraft sources. Interim Helistop - CNEL Contours
A �
I � s
it >,��• N•• i• • Oe perto�
4 ,b
1 V f V
Lip-,
Legend - ti
CNEL Contours -
55 dB
O 60 dB
65 dB
QHospital Campus v Tt
Noise Sensitive
Land Use
T
A
Permanent Helistop ..
0 500 �_ —e • Opp 3
Feet
J
SOURCE: ESAAirports, 2013; INM 7.0d: City of Temecula: USDA, 2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652
NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations Figure 6
only and do not represent the now exposure msufting from non - aircraft sources. Permanent Helistop - CNEL Contours
���t - i��A.. -i I• � .y aY
1 771
t�w )DI - � lslih Sitc 3
site 2
a t
Site L ` t
J.,; ' °. , .., +•' Site 4
I air' kwaY
let
at
�e
L aha
Site 5
Legend i ' •' r.7
O Monitoring Locations r .• "" *•� - + v
A.
Hospital Campus
�•
0 1,000
i
Feet i
SOURCE: ESAAilp", 2013: INM 7.0d: USDA, 2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652
Figure 7
Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations
ADOPTED 2006 FINAL EIR
(AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
UPON REQUEST)
ADOPTED 2008 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
(AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
UPON REQUEST)
ADOPTED 2011 EIR ADDENDUM
(AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
UPON REQUEST)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION LETTER
DATED MARCH 4, 2014
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
CHAIR March 4, 2014
Simon Hausman
Rancho Mirage Mr. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner
VICE CHAIRMAN City of Temecula Planning Department
Rod Ballance 41000 Main Street
Riverside Temecula, CA 92590
COWSSIONERS RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Arthur Butler File No.: ZAP1054FV13
Riverside Related File No.: PA 13 -0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit)
John Lyon APN: 959 - 080 -026
Riverside
Glen Holmes Dear Mr. Fisk:
Hemet
On February 13, 2014, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found City of
Greg ReHis Temecula Case No. PA 13 -0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit), a proposal to establish a
Cathedral City
temporary (interim) heliport (specifically, a hospital helistop), consisting of a 48 -foot diameter
Richard Stewart (1,808 square foot) Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) Area on a ground mounted concrete landing
Moreno Valley pad with perimeter lighting and painted markings, within an 87 -foot diameter final approach and
takeoff area, plus a 16 -foot tall ground mounted illuminated wind cone, on the grounds of
STAFF Temecula Valley Hospital, located northerly of Temecula Parkway and south of De Portola Road,
oirectnr CONSISTENT with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use
Ed Cooper Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions:
John Guerin
Russell Brady
Barbara Santos CONDITIONS:
mutytdn3r&eGTkr
40Ierrna' 14u Floor.
RNersiae, CA 92591 1. No operations (takeoffs or landings) shall be conducted until such time as the State of
951)955.5192 California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has issued a Site
Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to Sections 3525 through
eawrcahcoro 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular
150/5390 -26, Heliport Design.
3. Establishment and operations shall comply with the recommendations and requirements
of the Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013, a copy of which is
attached hereto.
Helicopter idle time shall be minimized as much as possible.
5. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) requests that Temecula
Valley Hospital consider returning to ALUC to seek advisory comments regarding
mitigation of noise impacts on surrounding properties in the event that the average
number of monthly operations exceeds sixteen (16) within any given quarterly period.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION March 4, 2014
This finding of consistency applies only to the interim helistop as evaluated in the
attached noise study. The permanent helistop will require subsequent review by the
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. It is recommended that single -event
noise analysis be conducted in conjunction with ALUC review of the permanent helistop,
by which time known activity levels at the interim helistop will allow for a more precise
projection of noise levels.
If you have any questions, please contact Russell Brady, ALUC Contract Planner, at (951) 955-
0549, or John Guerin, ALUC Principal Planner, at (951) 955 -0982.
Sincerely,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ^RT-16AND USE COMMISSION
RB:bks
cc: Temecula Valley Hospital (applicant) (site address)
Temecula Valley Hospital, Inc., c/o George Brunner, King of Prussia (tax roll address)
Jeff Wright (representative)
DPR/Turner, a Joint Venture (payee)
Amy C. Towell (nearby landowner)
ALUC Staff
Y:WRPORT CASE FILE&French ValleylZAP1054FV13VAP1054FV13 .LTR.doc
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION LETTER
DATED JULY 3, 2013
11
U.S Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
July 3, 2013
Mr. Jeffery Wright
Heliplanners
31110 Avenida Del Reposo
Temecula, California 92591 -1718
Dear Mr. Wright:
Western - Pacific Region P.O. Box 92007
Los Angeles Airports District Office Los Angeles, CA 90009
Temecula Valley Hospital
Temecula, California
Airspace Case No. 2013 -AWP- 745 -NRA
Lat. 33 -28 -48.80 N, Long. 117 -06 -28.80 W (NAD 83)
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has completed an airspace study in
response to your proposal submitted on FAA Form 7480 -1, Notice of Landing Area
Proposal, for the activation and establishment of the subject private heliport in
Temecula, California on behalf of the hospital. Our analysis determined that the
proposal is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and will not
adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. Therefore,
the FAA does not object to the establishment of the proposed landing area,
provided the following conditions are met:
a. The landing area is operated for private -use only.
b. Operations are to be conducted at this facility only during Visual Flight
Rule (VFR) conditions, and in accordance with the
restrictions /communications requirements of the overlying class of
airspace.
C. The landing area operator shall ensure and maintain obstruction -free
routes of ingress /egress to the landing area.
d. Ensure unauthorized persons are restrained from access to the
takeoff /landing area during helicopter flight operations by use of
erecting a non - obstructing safety barrier such as fencing.
e. Lower the nearest parking light poles northeast of the touchdown and
lift -off (TLOF) area that penetrate the 8:1 slope. From the center point
of helipad TLOF, Pole #1 036 degrees, 168 ft., Pole #2 013 degrees, 221
ft., Pole #3 003 degrees, 222 ft.
f. Adjust the ingress /egress routes in the northeast quadrant or shift the
TLOF area north a few feet. Recommend changing egress route heading from
028 degrees to 020 degrees or by shifting location of the helipad prior
to construction by a few feet north would allow departure on a 028 degree
heading or adjust the outbound heading to 020 degrees MAG from current
TLOF location to clear the main hospital building. Northwest corner of
the hospital building penetrates 8:1 departure surface and 2:1
transitional surface.
g. A representative of Flight Standards Service (AFS) must evaluate /conduct
a follow -up inspection of the heliport after construction for compliance
prior to its operational use,
h. Contact should be made with the California Department of Transportation,
Aeronautics Division (CALTRANS) in order for their office to make an
evaluation and determination in regards to obtaining a state heliport
permit. Your point of contact is:
Mr. Jeff Brown
Senior Aviation Safety Officer
California Department of Transportation
Division of Aeronautics, MS40
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274
916 - 654 -4565
This airspace study did not include an environmental review to determine whether
or not the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91 -190), as
amended.
This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the
physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with
respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with
respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.
In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effect
the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring
airports, the effect it would have on the existing airspace structure and
projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons
and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade
objects (on file with the FAA) and known natural objects within the affected area
would have on the heliport proposal. Also, this determination in no way preempts
or waives any ordinances, laws, or regulations of any other government body or
agency.
The FAA cannot prevent the construction of structures near heliports. The
facility environs can only be protected through such means as local zoning
ordinances or acquisition of property rights.
This determination expires on December 3, 2014, unless it is otherwise extended,
revised, or terminated, or the facility is constructed before that date. An
extension may be requested through our office, if necessary, up to 15 -days prior
to this expiration date.
Also enclosed is the Airport Master Record, FAA Form 5010 -5 for establishment of
a "private use" landing area within our database system. Within 30 -days after
the landing area becomes operational, we would appreciate you completing this
form for the heliport by signing, dating and returning it to me at this office,
so your facility can be added into the FAA Airport Data System.
If you have any questions, I may be contacted at 310/725 -3628.
1Sincerely,
Margie Driing \
Airport Planner. )
CC: California Department of Transportation
Mr. Jeff Brown
Senior Aviation Safety Officer
Division of Aeronautics, MS 40
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274
CALTRANS DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS E -MAIL
DATED DECEMBER 29, 2011
Printed 6/1312013 1:25 PM1:25 PM
Jeff Wright
From: Phillip Miller <phillip_miller @ dot.ca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:34 AM
To: Jeff Wright
Cc: Jeff Brown
Subject: Re: UHST -1 Temecula Valley Hospital -- Revised HLP
Categories: Business
Jeff
To recap our conversation this morning we understand that only one approach / departure path is possible due to a
previously established environmental evaluation and your clients insistence. In light of this fact, and to enhance both
safety and compatibility, we would like for you and your client to consider rotating the proposed Flight path to the south as
to clear (from overflight) the existing and proposed apartment buildings in the Summerhouse complex. Should this not be
possible we will require the obstruction lighting of all two story or higher buildings in the complex that underlie the depicted
approach /departure path. As usual, we will need to have the obstruction lights or the adjusted approach / departure path
shown on the HLP for permit committee approval.
Thanks
Phillip Miller, C.M.
Aviation Safety Officer
California Department of Transportation
Division of Aeronautics, MS#40
P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274 -0001
Office: (916) 654 -5507 Fax: (916) 653 -9531
E -mail: phillip.miller @dot.ca.gov
Website: www.dot.ca.gov /aeronautics
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER
DATED APRIL 23, 2014
Rrmttsm COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROM ECT ON
John R. Hawkins — Fire Chief
210 West San Jacinto Avenue - Perris, CA 92570
(951) 940 -6900 - ww v rvcfire org
PROUDLY SERVING THE
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY April 23, 2014
AND THE CRIES OF:
BANNING Temecula Valley Hospital
31700 Temecula Pkwy.
BEAUMONT Temecula CA 92592
CALIMESA Re: Temecula Valley Hospital EMS Landing Site
CANYON LAKE
COACHELLA The establishment of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Landing Site at Temecula Valley Hospital
DESERT HOT SPRINGS would greatly enhance the health, safety and ability to provide life- saving medical care in our
EASTVALE community and for the patients treated by your facility.
INDIAN WELLS Pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code, Section 2662. 1, the Riverside County Fire Chief, as the
authorized public safety agency, hereby approves Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency Medical
INDIO Services (EMS) Landing site for intermittent emergency helicopter operations. This designation is
JURUPA VALLEY located at the eastern portion of the facility, situated at the proposed permanent landing site. This site is
approved for one (1) year pending the implementation of the following administrative regulations,
LAKE ELSINORE operational requirements and safety enhancements at and for the designated landing zone (LZ) location:
LA OUINTA
Operational Requirements (California Code of Regulations - Title 21 Requirements)
MENIFEE . Location is reserved for medical emergencies and transportations
MORENO VALLEY Title 21 Section 3527 - Emergency Landing Site
• Over a twelve month period with no more than an average of six
NORCO landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except
PALM DESERT to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event.
• Not marked as a permitted heliport
PERRIS o Used for emergency medical purposes
RANCHO MIRAGE
Safety Enhancements
RUBIDOUx CSD Maintain appropriate lighting for night landings
SAN JACINTO Provide for appropriate fire extinguishing requirements
. Maintain a minimum of 100' landing area clear of obstructions and hazards
TEMECULA . Remove trees, vegetation, parking spaces, etc... as necessary to accommodate LZ
WILDOMAR requirements
. Maintain white landing dot, per specifications in center of LZ
. Designate an appropriate safety area surrounding LZ
BOARD OF . Prevent parking, bicycle and pedestrian traffic in proposed LZ area
SUPERVISORS. Mount and maintain a lighted wind cone on roof of hospital
KEVIN JEFFRIES Utilize hospital security personnel to ensure the LZ is safe and secure for helicopter
DISTRICT t activity when a landing or take -off is proposed
JOHN TAV DISTRICT DISTRICT 2 The Riverside County Fire Department is proud to partner with your organization to enhance the healtlr,
safety and welfare of our community. Furthermore, we are readily available to meet and discuss any
JEFF SroNE questions or conce yo may have with this project.
DISTRICT 3
JOHN BENOIT t gards,
DISTRICT 4
MARION ASHLEY
DISTRICT 5
ohn R. awkins
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER
DATED MARCH 16, 2015
John R. Hawkins — Fire Chief
210 West San Jacinto Avenue — Perris, Ca 92570 -1915
Bus: (951) 940 -6900 — Fax: (951) 940 -6910 — www.rvcfire.r
PROUDLY SERVING THE
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
March 16, 2015
OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AND THE CITIES OF:
Temecula Valley Hospital
31700 Temecula Pkwy.
BANNING
Temecula CA 92592
BEAUMONT
Re: Temecula Valley Hospital EMS Landing Site
CALIMESA
CANYON LAKE
Mr. Michael Smith,
COACHELLA
The establishment of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Landing Site at Temecula Valley
DESERT HOT SPRINGS
Hospital would greatly enhance the health, safety and ability to provide life- saving medical care in our
community and for the patients treated by your facility.
EASrVALE
INDIAN WELLS
Pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code, Section 21662. 1, the Riverside County Fire Chief, as
the authorized public safety agency, hereby approves Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency
INDIO
Medical Services (EMS) Landing site for intermittent emergency helicopter operations. This
JURUPA VALLEY
designation is located at the eastern portion of the facility, situated at the proposed permanent landing
site. This site is approved for one (1) year pending the implementation of the following administrative
LAKE ELSINORE
regulations, operational requirements and safety enhancements at and for the designated landing zone
LA QUINTA
(LZ) location:
MENIFEE Operational Requirements (California Code of Regulations — Title 21 Requirements)
MORENO VALLEY • Location is reserved for medical emergencies and transportations
• Title 21 Section 3527 - Emergency Landing Site
NORCO o Over a twelve month period with no more than an average of six
PALM DESERT landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter,
except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event.
PERRIS o Not marked as a permitted heliport
RANCHO MIRAGE o Used for emergency medical purposes
RUSIDOUx CSD Safety Enhancements
SAN JACINTO
TEMECULA
WILDOMAR
BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS:
KEVIN JEFFRIES
DISTRICT 1
JOHN TAVAGLIONE
DISTRICT 2
CHARLES WASHINGTON
DISTRICT 3
JOHN BENOIT
DISTRICT 4
MARION ASHLEY
DISTRICT 5
• Maintain appropriate lighting for night landings
• Provide for appropriate fire extinguishing requirements
• Maintain a minimum of 100' landing area clear of obstructions and hazards
• Remove trees, vegetation, parking spaces, etc, as necessary to accommodate LZ
requirements
• Maintain white landing dot, per specifications in center of LZ
• Designate an appropriate safety area surrounding LZ
• Prevent parking, bicycle and pedestrian traffic in proposed LZ area
• Mount and maintain a lighted wind cone on roof of hospital
• Utilize hospital security personnel to ensure the LZ is safe and secure for helicopter
activity when a landing or take -off is proposed
The Riverside County Fire Department is proud to partner with your organization to enhance the
health, safety and welfare of our community.
TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL LETTER
DATED MARCH 9, 2015
�?\`,rN TemeculaValley
HOSPITAL
March 9, 2015
Stuart Fisk
Senior Planner, City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Fisk
I am writing on behalf of Temecula Valley Hospital regarding the important public interest which will be
served through the hospital's helistop. The hospital's Board of Governors, Medical Staff and Management
Team believe strongly that the public benefit of having a helistop greatly outweigh impacts of having a
helistop, such as noise.
Helicopter transports include a critical care team which has advanced scope of practice to continue the
same level of care initiated at the hospital. The clinical need for rapid transportation into or out of a
hospital are predominantly for the following reasons:
Rapid access to specialty services requiring time - limited treatments -such as stroke care.
Access to specialty services only available at a few centers, such as critical pediatric care, trauma
and burn services.
The most common patients who have been flown by helicopter out of Temecula valley Hospital have
been critically ill children. When a critically ill pediatric patient is flown to Rady Children's Hospital San
Diego or another Children's Hospital, the helicopter arrives quickly with a team that includes a pediatric
specialty nurse and a pediatric physician who come into the hospital's ER, speak with the ER physician
caring for the patient to appropriately transition care, and then accompanies the critically ill child back to
the Children's Hospital. A child's hemodynamic stability can change in an instant. It is imperative to get
them to the specialized services they need as quickly as possible and to send them from TVH with the best
team of providers possible helps ensure the best possible outcome.
Additional critical patients who are transferred out via helicopter include patients who require very
specialized lifesaving procedures such as certain types of brain and heart vessel aneurysm repair. When
trying to save a brain that is bleeding or a major heart vessel that has dissected every second counts.
These types of patients need to get transported with a critical care team and cannot afford to be held up
in traffic. They do not have time to spare.
In addition to transferring out critical patients, as a STEMI Receiving Center and a Stroke Ready Hospital,
Temecula Valley Hospital also receives in critically ill patients. There are occasions when due to distance,
remote access location, or a traffic situation, it is important to be able to transfer patients to Temecula
Valley Hospital via helicopter to maximize the opportunity to provide timely lifesaving care.
10 Q
lerrimula Valley Hospflal 317[X1 Ternecula Parkway Temecula, C'A 92592
www.temeculavalleyhospital.com
TemeculaValley
HOSPITAL
Without a helistop, hospitals address the need for critical care transports through these options:
• The most frequently utilized option is to call 911 and transport in ground ambulance staffed with
paramedics.
• Paramedics have a more limited scope of practice compared with a critical care team,
thus must cease medications and interventions during transport.
• Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion.
• Utilizing 911 ambulances for these transports takes the 911 ambulance out of service in
the community for an extended time.
• An option to 911 ambulance transportation is to utilize critical care ground transport
ambulances.
• There are fewer such ambulances available so there can be delays in availability of this
specialty ambulance.
• Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion.
Without a helistop a last option is to have a helicopter land at a remote off -site location such as
an airport, park or field. The critical care response team takes a ground ambulance to the
hospital to pick up the patient and returns to the helicopter for flight out.
• This option provides significant enough time delay that it is typically impractical.
• This option ties up the local fire department engines because they have to "secure" the
off -site landing area and provide ground to air radio communications for safety. This
takes the 911 fire engines out of service to the community for a period of time.
In critical medical situations, there is a correlation between the speed of response and a favorable
outcome for the patient. When a hospital does not have a helistop care for patients can suffer. Patients
in the community do not have rapid access to the specialty services they need, and upon case review their
outcomes are affected in an undesirable way. Having a helistop at a hospital provides the community
with all potential options to receive rapid access to any care required at a specialty center with no change
in the level of care during transport.
Temecula Valley Hospital leaders and physicians believe that significant public interest is served by having
the helistop which outweighs the unavoidable impacts (noise) that would result from the project.
Sincerely, �'//
P -
Darlene Wetton
Chief Executive Officer
V
lemmulu Vullev Hoyrlluf 3171N1 lemecula Parkway lemecula, CA 92592
www.teineculavalleyhospital.com
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
Stuart Fisk
From:
Lee R <leerosu @gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 22, 2014 1:35 PM
To:
Stuart Fisk
Cc:
Maryann Edwards; Jeff Comerchero; Mike Naggar; Chuck Washington; Matt Rahn
Subject:
Helistop SEIR- resident feedback
Attachments:
Resident-Comments on TVH Helistop DSEIR 2014.pdf;
Temecula _Hospital_EmergencyGenerator_ Notice_12- IS- 14.PDF
Dear Mr. Fisk,
Please find attached our response to the hospital helipad SEIR. This isn't the first message we sent to the City of
Temecula officials. In all messages we're bringing up the problems the hospital placement brought to the
community. The first issue associated with the hospital ( even without the helipad or emergency generator) is
increase in traffic and noise. The helipad and emergency generator ( see letter attached) bring additional health
and safety issues to the community. Nobody denies the need for healthcare facilities in this area, but the
planning of such facilities is what is creating all these issues. The location of the hospital lacks common sense
and therefore we suspect some special interests at work here! A more appropriate site location for a hospital
would have been a parcel near the freeway, for instance at the WEST end of Temecula Pkwy. Advantages of
such site: easy access to /from freeway, non - residential community, plenty of room for a helipad and ultimately,
such placement would have shown that the City actually cares about it's residents!
There is still time to do the right thing: the best solution for the helipad issue would be to place the helipad at
location mentioned above.
I hope the City will make a decision in the best interest of the community!
Thank you,
Simona Rosa
30451 DE PORTOLA AVE
Y c .
A = From:
r Steve Chen
SEC 1) 2 44501 Verde Dr
1sY, oi4 '� Temecula, CA 92592
>
To:
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
(via USPS certified mail #7003 0500 0003 9665 3622)
Re: Comments /Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEUR 2014
Date: 12/16/2014
Dear Sir,
I oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEER) for the following reasons:
1. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in
approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA
compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project.
The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop
project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the
existence of this project before November 2013.
A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that
includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006
Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into
compliance with CEQA.
• In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification
for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008.
But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital
project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all. There was no
environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in
this 2008 SEIR.
The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing
environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address
noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order
circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit.
2. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding
excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" EIR are preposterous and irrelevant. There is
simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to.
3. Despite the current (2014) SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the
facts remain:
Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. it produces 105dB of noise continuously
which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter
"noise" can not be turned off at will during operation.
Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten
of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes
occurred during takeoff and landing.
• The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods
and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low
altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose
immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists.
Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional
ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk
factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival.
Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the
ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely
rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula
(along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is not one of them.
While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if
approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to
Temecula communities.
4. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that
outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities.
5. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve
a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment."
The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available, the ground
transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula!
Sincerely,
Steve Chen
2
Katie & Robert Jenkins
43810 Villa Del Stir Dr
Temecula CA 92592
Attn Stuart Fisk
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Comments /Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014
December 16, 2014
Dear Sir,
We oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the following reasons:
1. The hospital is not a trauma center so there is no good reason for a helistop other than to
run up larger bills for the patients and insurance companies.
2. Despite the current (2014) SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects,
the facts remain:
• Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously
which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren,
helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation.
Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in
ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these
crashes occurred during takeoff and landing.
• The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential
neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79).
The effects of low altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust,
landing lights etc) will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to
residents and motorists.
Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than
traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting
for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of
survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and
where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only
those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such
service, Temecula (along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is
not one of them.
While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if
approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to
Temecula communities.
3. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in
approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA
compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project.
• The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop
project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the
existence of this project before November 2013.
• A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that
includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006
Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into
compliance with CEQA.
• In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification
for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008.
• But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital
project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all. There was no
environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in
this 2008 SEIR.
• The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing
environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address
noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order
circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit.
4. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding
excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" EIR are preposterous and irrelevant. There is
simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to.
5. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that in fact
outweighs its detriment to the environment.
6. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve
a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment."
The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available, the ground
transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula!
Sincerely,
C'11P
Katie and Robert Jenkins
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4178
(909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE
"PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT /OPERATE" PURSUANT TO RULE 212
This notice is to inform you that the South Coast Air Quality Management District
( SCAQMD) has received an application for permit to construct an internal combustion
engine driving an emergency generator at a location in your neighborhood. The
SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and portions of
Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Anyone wishing to install,
operate, or m - — - .
equtpment that could be a source of air pollution wtthm ibis region
must first obtain a permit from the SCAQMD. Rule 212 requires the applicant for certain
projects, such as this one, to distribute a public notice prepared by the SCAQMD prior to
the issuance of a permit. This notice is being distributed because the project is located
within 1000 feet of Rancho Community Christian School located at 31300 Rancho
Community Way, Temecula, CA 92592.
The SCAQMD has evaluated the permit applications for the following equipment and
determined that the equipment will meet all applicable air quality requirements of our
Rules and Regulations.
COMPANY NAME: TEMECULA CA UNITED SURGERY CENTER, LP
APPLICATION NO.: 567707
LOCATION ADDRESS: 31469 RANCHO PUEBLO RD, TEMECULA, CA
92592
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INSTALL AND OPERATE AN INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINE DRIVING AN
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
Temecula CA United Surgery Center, LP, is a new surgical center. The engine will drive
an electrical generator that supplies power in case of an electrical emergency. The engine
will be tested on a weekly basis for a maximum of one hour. Our calculations show that
based upon a 30-day average a maximum of 0.281b /day of nitrogen oxides, 0.07 lbs/day
of carbon monoxide, 0.002 lbs/day of fine particulates, 0.01 lbs/day of organic gases, and
0.0006 lb /day sulfur oxides will be emitted from project described above in any one day.
Generally, the amount will be less as most emergency generator engines do not operate at
maximum capacity. The engine operation will emit small quantities of some toxic
compounds. The SCAQMD has evaluated the long term (chronic) health impacts
associated with the maximum potential emissions. Using worst case conditions, our
evaluation shows that the chronic health risk is well below our rule's toxic thresholds
(below a Hazard Index of 1). According to the state health experts, a hazard index of one
or less means that the surrounding community including the most sensitive individuals
such as very young children and the elderly will not experience any adverse health
impacts due to exposure to these emissions. In addition, the cancer risk from these
emissions is below the SCAQMD risk threshold of one in a million.
The air quality analysis of this project is available for public review at the SCAQMD's
headquarters in Diamond Bar. A copy of the draft permit to operate can be viewed at
httQ / /www3.aq_md. goy/ webgppl/i3ublicnotices2/Search.Mx. Information regarding the
facility owner's compliance history submitted to the SCAQMD pursuant to California
Health & Safety Code Section 42336, or otherwise known to SCAQMD, based on
credible information, is also available from the SCAQMD for public review. Anyone
wishing to comment on the proposed issuance of this permit should submit their
comments in writing within 30 days of the distribution date shown below. If you are
concerned primarily about zoning decisions and the process by which this facility
has been sited at this location, you should contact your local city or county planning
department. Please submit comments related to air quality to Ms. Vicky Lee, Air
Quality Engineer, Engineering and Compliance, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765 -4178.
For additional information, please call Ms. Vicky Lee at (909) 396 -2284. For your
general information, anyone experiencing air quality problems such as dust or odor can
telephone in a complaint to the SCAQMD by calling 1- 800 - CUT -SMOG (1- 800 -288-
7664).
Distribution Date: 12-15-2014
Stuart Fisk
From: Azim Azhand <azimazhandmd @gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:02 PM
To: Stuart Fisk
Subject: Against having Helicopter landing pad at Temecula Valley Hospital
I am a doctor and living in Santiago Estates, despite the pollution and noise issue with Helicopters disrupting
the lives of the community, one have to ask the need and the necessity of having the Helicopter landing pad.
TVH is not a trauma center and neither has newbom or OB services, so that there is no urgency to use
Helicopters for transportation of patients, for all other medical cares the hospital should be able to provide
initial care, stabilized patients could be transferred in and out of the hospital safely and cost effectively by BLS
or ACLS Ambulance services. Azim U. Azhand, MD
Temecula Planning Department
41000 Main St RECEIVED
Temecula, CA 92590
951- 694 -6444 JUN 0 2 2014
May 16 , 2014
To Whom It May Concern:
1, as a city resident of Temecula in the best interests of my residency and every other current and future resident
in Temecula, oppose the Temecula Valley Hospital heliport project for the following reasons:
The fact that Temecula Valley Hospital is not a trauma center means there is no need or itrstifrcation
of helicopter facility, especially when considering the ertreune detriments the surrounding
neighborhoods have to put up with.
Helicopters are extremely noisy. While the city's outdoor noise limit is 65dB, helicopter produces
105dB of noise (that's twice as loud as a jackhammer) CONTINUOUSLY. And unlike ambulance siren,
helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation.
Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. A medical helicopter is usually 3 to 4
times the size and weight of police helicopter and flies much closer to the ground than its law
enforcement counterpart. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and
2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing.
Studies and statistics show NO evidence that a medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than
traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk
factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival.
•: No human, structure or animal is undisturbed by the helicopters overhead — the noise, the vibrations and
the rattling.
Please, please, please do not allow this project to go forward for the continued peace and beauty in our
community.
Sincerely,
/
�t 3chinc /L1-
t�Y2f31
Temecula Planning Department
41000 Main St
Temecula, CA 92590
951- 694 -6444
April 23, 2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I, as a city resident of Temecula in the best interests of my residency and every other current and future resident
in Temecula, oppose the Temecula Valley Hospital heliport project for the following reasons:
The fact that Temecula Valley Hospital is not a trauma center means there is no need or justification
of a helicopter facility, especially when considerin,- the extreme detriments the surrounding
neighborhoods have to put tip with.
Helicopters are extremely noisy. While the city's outdoor noise limit is 65dB, helicopter produces
105dB of noise (that's twice as loud as a jackhammer) CONTINUOUSLY. And unlike ambulance siren,
helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation.
3 Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. A medical helicopter is usually 3 to 4
times the size and weight of police helicopter and flies much closer to the ground than its law
enforcement counterpart. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and
2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing.
Studies and statistics show NO evidence that a medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than
traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk
factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival.
S No human, structure or animal is undisturbed by the helicopters overhead —the noise, the vibrations and
the rattling.
Please, please, please do not allow this project to go forward for the continued peace and beauty in our
community.
Sincerly, 1
�ie ert Jenkins �
I
43810 Villa Del Sur Dr
Temecula. CA 92592
From:
Simona Rosu
30451 DE PORTOLA RD
TEMECULA,CA 92592
To:
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Comm euts /Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014
Date:
Dear Sir,
We, as residents of Temecula in the best interests of our community, oppose Temecula Valley
Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
for the following reasons:
1. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in
approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA
compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project.
• The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop
project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the
existence of this project before November 2013.
• A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that
includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006
Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into
compliance with CEQA.
• In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification
for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008.
• But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital
project in January 2008 did not address the helistop issue at all. There was no
environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in
this 2008 SEIR.
• The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing
environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address
noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order
circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit.
2. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding
excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" EIR are preposterous and irrelevant. There is
simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to.
3. Despite the current (2014) SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the
facts remain:
• Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously
which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter
"noise" can not be turned off at will during operation.
• Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten
of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes
occurred during takeoff and landing.
• The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods
and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low
altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose
immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists.
• Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional
ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk
factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival.
Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the
ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely
rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula
(along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is not one of them.
While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if
approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project wilt be significant and detrimental to
Temecula communities.
4. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that
outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities.
5. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR§ 1 5021: A public agency should not approve
a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment."
The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already exists, the ground transport
ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula!
Sincerely,
Simona Rosa
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula
PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
Case No:
PA13 -0141
Applicant:
Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
Proposal:
A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) and Conditional Use
Permit (PA07 -0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital. The modification would
relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim
location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the
roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase. The
modification would also allow for the construction of an approximately 5,000
square foot single -story storage building for non - hazardous material storage to be
located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site
is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road at 31780 Temecula Parkway.
Environmental:
Consistent with Section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA),
a Supplemental EIR was prepared for this modification application.
Case Planner:
Stuart Fisk, (951) 506 -5159
Place of Hearing:
City of Temecula, Council Chambers
Date of Hearing:
April 15, 2015
Time of Hearing:
6:00 p.m.
The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the
Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning
Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website —
www.cityoftemecula.org. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding
any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main
Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In
addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be
available for public review at the respective meeting.
If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the
Planning Department, (951) 694 -6400.