The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop RDSEIR TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for February 2016 City of Temecula TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for February 2016 City of Temecula 550 West C Street Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 619.719.4200 www.esassoc.com Irvine Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 130652 TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. S-1 1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Summary .................................................................................................................1-2 1.2 Project Background .................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Environmental Review ............................................................................................1-4 1.4 Purpose of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ....................................1-8 1.5 Organization of the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report .....1-9 1.6 Public Involvement and Review of the Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report .............................................................................. 1-10 2. Project Description .........................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................2-4 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics ...............................................................2-5 2.4 Proposed Major Modification ..................................................................................2-7 2.5 Discretionary Approvals ....................................................................................... 2-17 2.6 Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................. 2-18 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 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................4-2 4.3 Alternatives Analyzed and Eliminated ....................................................................4-3 4.4 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................4-7 4.5 No Project /Existing Condition Alternative ..............................................................4-8 4.6 No Project /City Approved Helistop Alternative ................................................... 4-16 4.7 Alternative Interim Helistop Site ........................................................................... 4-24 4.8 Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative ................................ 4-36 4.9 Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative ............................................. 4-45 4.10 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................... 4-53 5. References ......................................................................................................................5-1 6. List of Preparers .............................................................................................................6-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project i ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2015 Table of Contents Page Appendix A: FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ and Riverside County ALUC Correspondence List of Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map ..............................................................................................2-6 2-2 Project Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................2-8 2-3 Proposed Hospital Storage Building and Interim Helistop Location ..........................2-9 2-4 Existing and Proposed Interim and Permanent Helistop Locations ....................... 2-10 2-5 Helistop Design Characteristics .............................................................................. 2-15 2-6 Hospital Storage Building Elevations ...................................................................... 2-16 2-7 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................ 2-21 3.3-1 Effects of Noise on People ..................................................................................... 3.3-3 3.3-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations ..................................................................... 3.3-8 3.3-3 Interim Helistop North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions .... 3.3-20 3.3-4 Interim Helistop South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions ..... 3.3-21 3.3-5 Permanent Helistop North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions ........................................................................................................ 3.3-22 3.3-6 Permanent Helistop South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions ........................................................................................................ 3.3-24 3.3-7 CNEL Contours for Interim Helistop Location ...................................................... 3.3-27 3.3-8 CNEL Contours for Permanent Helistop Location ............................................... 3.3-28 4-1 City Approved Helistop – CNEL Contours .............................................................. 4-12 4-2 City Approved Site East-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 4-17 4-3 City Approved Site West-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions ..... 4-18 4-4 Alternative Interim Helistop Site .............................................................................. 4-25 4-5 Alternative Interim Helistop - North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4-27 4-6 Alternative Interim Helistop - South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4-28 4-7 Alternative Interim Helistop CNEL Contours ........................................................... 4-32 4-8 Alternative Interim Helistop CNEL Contours ........................................................... 4-41 4-9 CNEL Contours for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative ............... 4-49 List of Tables S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................. S-10 2-1 Planned and Approved Projects in the Project Area .............................................. 2-19 3.3-1 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements ............................................ 3.3-7 3.3-2 Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL) ........................................................ 3.3-10 3.3-3 City of Temecula Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix ....................................... 3.3-11 3.3-4 City of Temecula Land Use Maximum Noise Level Standards ........................... 3.3-14 3.3-5 City of Temecula Municipal Code Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix............. 3.3-15 3.3-6 Helicopter Operation Times of Day (CNEL) ......................................................... 3.3-19 3.3-7 EC-135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages – Interim Location ............. 3.3-23 3.3-8 EC-135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages – Permanent Location ...... 3.3-23 3.3-9 Single-Event Noise Levels for the Interim Helistop.............................................. 3.3-29 3.3-10 Single-Event Noise Levels for the Permanent Helistop ....................................... 3.3-30 3.3-11 Existing Ambient Noise and Location Point Noise for the Interim Site ................ 3.3-32 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project ii ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2015 Table of Contents Page List of Tables (cont.) 3.3-12 Existing Ambient Noise and Location Point Noise for the Permanent Site ......... 3.3-32 3.3-13 Helicopter CNEL Noise for Sites 6 through 9 ...................................................... 3.3-33 4-1 Existing Ambient CNEL Measurements and helicopter CNEL Noise from the City Approved Site .............................................................................................. 4-13 4-2 Single-Event noise Levels from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative ...... 4-14 4-3 Single-Event Noise Levels – No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative ......... 4-22 4-4 Existing Ambient CNEL Noise and Helicopter Noise from the Alternative Interim Site .......................................................................................................... 4-33 4-5 Single-Event Noise for the Alternative Interim Site Alternative .............................. 4-34 4-6 Existing Ambient CNEL Noise and Helicopter Noise from the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative .......................................................... 4-42 4-7 Single-Event Noise Levels – Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative ........................................................................................................... 4-43 4-8 Single-Event Noise Levels for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative ........................................................................................................... 4-50 4-9 Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives and the Proposed Project ......................... 4-54 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project iii ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2015 Acronyms Used in this Report AC Advisory Circular ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan amsl above mean sea level CCR 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 Services FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FATO final approach and takeoff area FHWA Federal Highway Administration Hz Hertz HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 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 iv ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 Introduction The Temecula Valley Hospital is being developed in phases; Phase 1 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 City-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 City-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, are reviewed in this Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (RDSEIR-2016) to identify potential environmental impacts that could result from the revised project. This section provides a summary of the RDSEIR-2016. The reader should review the entire document to fully understand the proposed Major Modification and its potential environmental consequences. S.2 California Environmental Quality Act Documentation History of the Hospital Project The City of Temecula previously approved development and operation of the hospital through certification of an EIR in 2006. A Supplemental EIR was prepared in 2008 and an Addendum to the Supplemental EIR was prepared in 2010. Currently, the hospital is proposing a Major Modification to change the location of the City-approved helistop and construct a 5,000-square- foot storage building. These components of change to the approved hospital project require additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation. Because the proposed Major Modification is limited to specific facilities and operations of the hospital that include: the helistop, helicopter flight paths, and construction and operation of a small storage facility; and no other components or operations of the hospital project would change, a new SEIR is the appropriate CEQA document. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-1 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-2 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 An SEIR is a document that provides additional information to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the revised project, which in this case includes the hospital with the relocated helistop and proposed storage building. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, an 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. A Draft SEIR (2014) was prepared for the proposed Major Modification and released for public review and comment for 45 days, from November 12, 2014, through December 26, 2014. However, pursuant to comments received during the public review and comment period, additional analysis of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (proposed project) has been conducted and additional information is available. As a result, the City of Temecula has chosen to include the additional information, analysis, and editorial changes into the Draft SEIR (2014), and recirculate the document. This RDSEIR-2016 is for governmental agencies and interested organizations and individuals to review and comment. Publication of this RDSEIR-2016 marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period that ends on March 23, 2016. 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 2 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 City-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 developed on a 5.5-foot-high berm on the west side of the hospital tower, approximately 300 feet northeast of Rancho Pueblo Road and 450 feet north of Temecula Parkway. Executive Summary 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, the interim and the permanent, would each have two flight paths and are designed in compliance with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requirements. Operation of the permanent helistop is currently anticipated to occur during Phase IV in 2022, consistent with the 2011 Major Modification approval (PA10-0194), Condition No. 27, requiring the applicant to commence construction of the future hospital tower (hospital bed tower 2) foundation contemplated in Phase IV no later than February 8, 2019. Once foundation construction commences in 2019, it could take up to approximately 3 years to construct and open the hospital tower and construct, license, and open the permanent rooftop helistop. The previously City-approved interim helistop location would be developed in Phase II 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. S.5 Project Objectives City Objectives The City’s objectives for the proposed project and project area, as listed in the 2006 EIR and 2008 SEIR, 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, • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-3 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary Applicant Objectives The objectives of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS) for the proposed project, as listed in the 2006 EIR and 2008 SEIR, are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices. • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who require ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Proposed Project Objectives The proposed relocation of the City-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, state-of-the-art emergency medical facilities and 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 objectives of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, hazards, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and ensuring the compatibility of development on the hospital site with surrounding uses in terms of minimizing potential hazards/safety impacts. 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 Draft Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 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 CEQA analysis document is necessary to evaluate 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-4 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary The analysis contained in this CEQA document 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. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been included 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 “significant unavoidable 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. 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): • Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Applicable Standards • Substantial Periodic Increases in Noise • Cumulative Noise Feasible mitigation has been required. However, 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. Accordingly, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes, and impacts related to generation of noise in excess of applicable standards, substantial temporary and periodic increases in ambient noise levels, and cumulative noise impacts from short-term noise events 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 RDSEIR -2016 are consistent with previous CEQA findings. S.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has considered alternatives 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-5 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice” (Section 15126.6[a]). The following alternatives are examined in this RDSEIR- 2016. No Project/Existing Condition Alternative The hospital currently uses the ground surface at the City-approved helistop site (located near the northeast corner of the site) as an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) landing site when necessary. To ensure safety during EMS medical helicopter operations, the hospital and City of Temecula Fire and Police Departments have outlined parameters for helicopter use of this location. The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative assumes that this existing condition would continue and that the City-approved helistop would not be developed. In addition, none of the required implementation measures, such as installing obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings, realignment of the flight path, adding a second egress/ingress flight path, or trimming the trees within the drainage adjacent to the hospital, which would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies, would be completed. The proposed storage building would also not be developed. No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted, and that the existing City-approved helistop location would be developed. The City-approved interim helistop would be developed on a 14-foot-high platform near the northeast corner of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. This alternative would include two flight paths: the original City-approved 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 the FAA subsequently required in the airspace determination letter, which would travel above single-family residential areas to the west of the project site. The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative may 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/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would not include development of the proposed storage building. Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative The Alternative 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. The flight paths for this helistop site would cross the front of the hospital site, between the hospital structures and Temecula Parkway, and would be aligned parallel to (and 144 feet north of) Temecula Parkway. 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 power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of their locations at night. This alternative would include development of the storage building, as proposed. Implementation Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-6 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission [ALUC], Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the interim helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. The flight paths for this helistop site would be the same the northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop and would be consistent with the applicable criteria of the aeronautical agencies (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). Development of the future hospital tower will occur in Phase IV of the hospital project. To allow for construction of the future hospital tower, the helistop would need to be temporarily relocated to the proposed interim helistop site, which would require all construction activities proposed for the interim site. After completion of the future hospital tower, the permanent helistop (on the roof of the new tower) would be operational and the interim location that would be used during construction of the new tower would be removed. This alternative would include development of the storage building, as proposed. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative The Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative would develop the helistop on the roof of the existing five-story hospital building. A similar northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop would be used by the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building. This alternative would include development of the storage building, as proposed. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable criteria of the aeronautical agencies (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). Because the additional mass from the helistop and helicopter would be substantial relative to the existing roof mass, seismic upgrades would be required pursuant to the California Building Code (CBC). In particular, the existing hospital building was designed and constructed in compliance with 2007 CBC requirements. Building modifications under this alternative would be required to comply with either the 2013 CBC or the CBC in place when building permits are issued. Currently, the 2013 CBC regulations are mandated, which are more stringent in terms of seismic requirements than the 2007 CBC. The 2013 CBC requires the following improvements to support a helistop on the roof of the existing hospital: • Gravity Support Modifications: (1) Existing roof beams of the hospital structure would be required to be strengthened by adding cover plates or tees welded to the underside of the beams; (2) Connections of the affected beams would need to be strengthened by supplemental fillet welding; and (3) Approximately eight existing building columns would need to be strengthened with cover plates from the ground up to the roof. This structural work, involving walls, floors and ceilings from the ground floor up to the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-7 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary ceiling, would impact the following areas/systems within the hospital building for the duration of construction: a. First Floor: parts of kitchen, main housekeeping, pharmacy, and the only service corridor. b. Second Floor: two intensive care unit rooms, patient mentoring room, respiratory services work room, and main corridor. c. Third Floor: five patient rooms and corridor. d. Fourth Floor: five patient rooms and corridor. e. Two patient elevators would need to be modified to go to the roof. • Pile Foundation Modifications: The existing pile foundations of the hospital structure would need to be strengthened with additional piles. As with the gravity support work, this structural work would impact the first-floor kitchen, main housekeeping, pharmacy, and the only service corridor during construction. • Framing Modifications: The existing moment frames and braced frames would need to be strengthened as a result of the increase in seismic loading. Likewise, the pile foundation supporting the existing seismic bracing system would need to be strengthened with additional piles. This structural work would impact medical surgery patient rooms throughout the tower and the first-floor emergency department, pharmacy, and kitchen areas. In addition to the CBC-required improvements, a fuel/water separator would need to be installed on the rooftop, the fire-suppression system of the hospital would be required to undergo substantial upgrades, and the existing rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system may need to be replaced. Insufficient separation between the HVAC intakes and helicopter engine exhaust could create harmful air quality conditions within the hospital. Should insufficient separation exist, the hospital would need to modify or replace the HVAC units with advanced carbon filtration and ionization systems. This would require an increase in air handler fan size to increase static air pressure. Construction of the above-listed improvements could take approximately 16 months, depending on the strategy chosen for facility operations, during which time the affected areas would be significantly disrupted and/or unusable. Areas outside of the hospital, which are nearby or underneath construction equipment (such as cranes), would also be unusable, which would affect hospital operations. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an SEIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the analysis within this section, the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative would result in fewer aesthetics impacts, similar hazards impacts, greater construction noise impacts, and reduced operational noise (particularly, at the interim helistop) impacts. However, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-8 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary Alternative would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to exceedance of noise standards, substantial periodic increases in noise, and cumulative noise from operation of the helistop. The other alternatives that are evaluated within this RDSEIR-2016 would result in greater impacts than would occur by the proposed interim helistop location, and/or would not substantially reduce the significant unavoidable noise impacts related to the project. Therefore, the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, this alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital that would result in substantial operational impacts to the hospital during the 16 months that the improvements would be implemented, which would not occur by the proposed project. The disruption to operations of the hospital that would occur by implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative would interfere with project objectives, including providing a regional hospital facility that is an operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors, providing for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services, and ensuring compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-9 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary 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 Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to issuance of a City permit allowing helicopter operations at the interim helistop, the Temecula Valley Hospital shall prepare and implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures: • Prior to helicopter operations, Temecula Valley Hospital shall develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. • All helicopter operations at the interim and permanent helistop locations shall use the approved flight paths, unless safety precautions require a diversion from any of the flight paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital service contracts with air medical companies shall require that all pilots be routinely trained to ensure that optimum arrival and departure flight paths procedures are followed for each helicopter type that serves Temecula Valley Hospital. Pilots would be instructed in the use of the approved approach and departure flight paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall maintain a log of helicopter activity which shall include a detailed record of the type of reason for the trip, and date and time of arrival and departure. If a diversion from prescribed flight paths occurs, the reason for diversion shall be recorded in the log. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. Significant and unavoidable 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 Project S-10 ESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This chapter provides an introduction and describes the background of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (proposed project), the purpose and legal authority for this Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (RDSEIR-2016), and the relationship to the previously certified project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (2006), previously certified Supplemental EIR (SEIR) (2008), previously certified Addendum to the SEIR (2010), and the Draft SEIR from 2014. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of programs and projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects or programs. Where there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare an EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[a]). An EIR is an informational document that will inform public agency decision makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. In this case, an SEIR (2014) was prepared to evaluate the change in the location of the Temecula Valley Hospital helistop that was previously approved by the City under separate CEQA documentation. CEQA requires that a Draft EIR (or Draft SEIR) be prepared and circulated for public review. Following the close of the public review period, the lead agency prepares a Final EIR (or in this case a Final RSEIR), which includes the comments received during the review period (either verbatim or in summary), and responses to the significant environmental issues identified in those comments. Prior to taking action on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify the SEIR and make certain findings. A lead agency is required to recirculate a Draft EIR (Draft SEIR), prior to certification, when “significant new information” is added after the public review period begins (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). New information is deemed significant if it reveals any of the following: • A new significant environmental impact resulting from either the project itself or a new proposed mitigation measure. • A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-1 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt it. • The Draft EIR was so fundamentally flawed that it precluded meaningful public review and comment. In addition, a lead agency may choose to recirculate a Draft EIR (or Draft SEIR) if additional studies or analysis is conducted for a project before a specific action is taken by the Lead Agency to approve a project. Public notice and circulation of the Recirculated SEIR (RSEIR) is required, per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15086 and 15087. Pursuant to comments received during the public review and comment period, additional analysis of the proposed project has been conducted and additional information is available. As a result, the City of Temecula has chosen to include the additional information, analysis, and editorial changes into the SEIR, and recirculate the document. 1.1 Summary The Temecula Valley Hospital is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula. The project applicant 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 City-approved helistop to two new locations: an interim helistop location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent helistop location on the roof of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during Phase IV. The previously City-approved interim helistop location would be developed with a one-story, 5,000-square-foot storage building that would provide storage space for nonhazardous 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 2008). 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 are reviewed in this RDSEIR- 2016 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 EIR 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-2 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction In 2011, the project applicant, Universal 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, 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 hospital currently uses the City-approved helistop site as an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) landing site, when necessary, which is allowable under state regulations related to medical transport (California Code of Regulations [CCR), Title 21, Section 3527(g)). The existing City- approved landing site is located 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 City-approved helistop has not completed the full approval process with the Riverside Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and has not been developed. Caltrans Aeronautics conducted a preliminary review, but required the single flight path to be rotated clockwise (approximately 36 degrees) to clear the Madera Vista apartments that are located next to the hospital to the east (on the northwest corner of Dartolo Road and Margarita Road), or that red obstruction lights be installed on the multi-family buildings. The rotated flight path would result in potentially hazardous near crosswind conditions for pilots on approach or departure. In addition, the FAA reviewed the City-approved helistop site and requires several conditions, including the addition of a second flight path in a northwestern direction that would cross directly over the Los Ranchitos neighborhood and removing or trimming the height of trees that are located within a drainage adjacent to the hospital. Any work in the drainage area, including tree trimming or removal, would require approvals and/or permits from county, state, and federal resource agencies. The City and hospital determined that the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ and FAA’s conditions were unacceptable due to potential impacts on off-site land uses as well as concerns over crosswind safety conditions for helicopter flights on approach or departure. As a result, the interim helistop facility has been redesigned and the applicant undertook a site selection process to satisfy both FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division requirements and to reduce conflicts with adjacent development. This process resulted in the “proposed interim helistop site.” Because construction of the hospital project is phased, two helistop locations would be developed: one interim and one permanent location. When the permanent helistop is operational, the interim helistop would be removed. The proposed interim helistop site was submitted to the FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Riverside County ALUC for review. In response, the FAA provided an airspace determination letter, which stated that the FAA analysis determined that the proposed helistop is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and use of the helistop would not adversely Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-3 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction affect the safe and efficient use of airspace. The FAA letter concluded that it does not object to the proposed helistop (FAA, 2013). Also, on February 13, 2014, the Riverside County ALUC found that the proposed helistop is consistent with the countywide policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. In addition, on June 12, 2013, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics signed and stamped a Heliport Layout Plan granting “Conditional Plan Approval” for the proposed helistop (a formal application package cannot be submitted to Caltrans Aeronautics until the City of Temecula approves the project). All three of these letters are provided in Appendix A. 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 two stories, and the Professional Office General Plan land use designation from the site. • 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. 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-4 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction 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 grounds 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 • 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 CEQA and were not revisited in the SEIR. 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-5 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction 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 1 began in June 2011, and Phase 1 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 11c-031 from the Section 401 Permit, dated September 26, 2011. November 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Major Modification 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. Thereafter, the Draft SEIR for the proposed Major Modification was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and released for public review and comment for 45 days, from November 12, 2014, through December 26, 2014. A Notice of Availability was published in a local newspaper and the Draft EIR was also made available for public review at several locations, including City offices and on the City’s website at: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Planning/ceqa.htm. 2016 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Pursuant to comments received during the public review and comment period, additional analysis of the proposed project has been conducted and additional information is available. As a result, the City of Temecula has chosen to include the additional information, analysis, and editorial changes into the SEIR, and recirculate the document. The additional information and analysis involves noise impacts from helicopter flight activity. Specifically, this RDSEIR-2016 evaluation of helicopter operational noise was expanded to include five additional sensitive receptor locations, and single-event noise metrics that provide compatibility criteria for the sensitive noise receptors in the project vicinity. This analysis resulted in modifications to the noise mitigation measure (NOI-1). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-6 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction In addition, the alternatives analysis has been expanded within this RDSEIR-2016. The Draft SEIR (2014) included analysis of the No Project Alternative and the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative. This RDSEIR-2016 has been expanded to include an evaluation of a second No Project Alternative (the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative) and two new alternatives that include the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative and the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. This RDSEIR-2016 also includes a discussion of three different alternatives that involve six different locations for the helistop that were considered but were eliminated from further consideration because they do not meet the majority of the project objectives, do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts, and/or were otherwise determined to be infeasible. 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 an SEIR was necessary to analyze potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise. A 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 Draft SEIR (2014). Copies of the Initial Study, notice of the public scoping 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 Draft SEIR (2014) 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 Draft SEIR (2014) 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 CEQA document. 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 the Draft SEIR (2014). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-7 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction 1.4 Purpose of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states when an EIR 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 of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 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. 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 Section15163 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. • 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-8 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction 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 potential impacts related to the two new locations, would require preparation of a SEIR. 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 EIR, 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 EIR. A subsequent EIR, 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-foot 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 previously, CEQA 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 Analysis. 1.5 Organization of this Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report This RDSEIR-2016 was prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. It includes CEQA-required sections and incorporates the balance of the CEQA sections contained in the original EIR by reference. This RDSEIR-2016 is organized as follows. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-9 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction Executive Summary: The executive summary, which precedes this introduction, includes a brief understanding of the proposed revisions to the City-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 (2006), 2008 SEIR, 2011 Addendum to the 2008 SEIR, and the 2014 Draft 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 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 Impacts and Mitigation Measures: 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 use defined thresholds of significance to determine the impacts of the proposed helistop locations. Chapter 4 – Project Alternatives: Several alternatives have been developed for the project and were evaluated in the previous EIR (2006) and SEIR (2008) and are incorporated by reference. The alternatives evaluation within this RDSEIR-2016 includes four alternatives 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 –References: All references of data that contributed to the environmental analysis. Chapter 6 – List of Preparers: Persons who prepared this environmental document. 1.6 Public Involvement and Review of the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-10 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1. Introduction Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-11 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 NOP, written comments on this RDSEIR-2016, and presentation of written or verbal comments at future public hearings. This RDSEIR-2016 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. This RDSEIR-2016 is also available on the City’s website at: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Planning/ceqa.htm. Publication of this RDSEIR-2016 marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period that ends on March 23, 2016, during which written comments may be directed to the City of Temecula at the address below. Please be advised that CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(1) states that in responding to comments received for the RDSEIR-2016, the City is not required to respond to the same comments received during the Draft SEIR (2014) circulation period. Pursuant to CEQA, although part of the administrative record, previous comments to the Draft SEIR (2014) do not require a written response in the Final RSEIR, and that new comments related to the RDSEIR-2016 shall be submitted. Thus, the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, need only respond to those comments submitted in response to this RDSEIR-2016. Comments on the proposed project should be directed to: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.org 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 and construction of a 5,000-square-foot storage building on the Temecula Valley Hospital parcel located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula. The project applicant, Universal Health Services, Inc. (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 by the City, is being constructed and operated in phases and at build out 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. • 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. As described in the 2011 Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the hospital, construction of the project would occur in six phases, as follows: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-1 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description Phase I Site Grading Main Entry Drive Off-Site Improvements Hospital (140 Beds) Five-Story Tower Hospital Parking (434 Spaces) Horse Trail Temporary Water Retention Basin at Southeast Corner of Site, Removed in Phase III Phase II (Medical Office Building) MOB 1 MOB 1 Parking (326 spaces) Final Underground WQMP BMP Chambers at Southeast Corner of Site Phase III MOB 2 MOB 2 Parking (300 Spaces) Phase IV Hospital (180 Beds) Five-Story Tower Hospital Parking (128 Spaces) Phase V Cancer Center Cancer Center Parking (50 Spaces) Phase VI Fitness Center Fitness Center Parking (40 Spaces) Jogging Trail Construction of Phase 1, which includes the new 140-bed, five-story hospital, is complete and the hospital began operations on October 14, 2013. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the City-approved helistop1 to two new locations: an interim location for use during preliminary project phases, which would then be removed when the permanent location is constructed on the roof of the future hospital tower, during Phase IV of the project. Operation of the permanent helistop is currently anticipated to occur in 2022, consistent with the 2011 Major Modification approval (PA10-0194), Condition No. 27, requiring the applicant to commence construction of the future hospital tower (hospital bed tower 2) foundation contemplated in Phase IV no later than February 8, 2019. Once foundation construction commences in 2019, it could take up to approximately 3 years to construct and open the hospital tower and construct, license, and open the permanent rooftop helistop. While the interim helistop will serve as a temporary location until the future hospital tower is constructed in Phase IV, this Recirculated Draft SEIR (RDSEIR-2016) does not limit its analysis to temporary short-term effects but instead fully evaluates the interim helistop’s potential impacts including any future long-term effects in the event that development of the future hospital tower occurs later than anticipated. The previous City-approved helistop location would be developed in Phase II, which is to occur next, with a one-story, 5,000-square-foot storage building that would provide storage space for 1 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 / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description nonhazardous 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 2008). 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 RDSEIR-2016. Helistop Approval Process City-Approved Helistop The City-approved helistop site has not been through the full approval process of other agencies that are required to review helistops, which include:2 • Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) as required by California’s Public Utilities Code. The City-approved helistop was submitted to ALUC for review. • Caltrans Division of Aeronautics as required by California Code of Regulations Title 21. Caltrans Aeronautics conducted a preliminary review but did not grant an approval. Caltrans specified via email that to gain its approval, the applicant would have to either: o Rotate the single proposed flight path clockwise (approximately 36 degrees) to clear the Madera Vista (at that time Summerhouse) multi-family residences to the east, resulting in a near crosswind condition for pilots on approach or departure; or o Arrange for red obstruction lights to be installed on those buildings (Miller, 2011, included in Appendix A). • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as required by Part 157 of 14 CFR, Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The FAA is required to conduct an airspace study under FAR Part 157 that results in an “airspace determination letter” expressing no objection “to the establishment of the proposed landing area.” As part of this process, an inspector from the FAA’s Riverside Flight Standards District Office visited the site and issued an airspace determination letter on March 15, 2012, that listed several conditions, including the addition of a second flight path in a northwestern direction that would cross directly over the Los Ranchitos neighborhood (Condition d), and removing or trimming the height of trees that are not under the jurisdiction of the hospital or the City (Condition e) (FAA, 2012, included in Appendix A). These FAA conditions were received after the City’s approval of the helistop site. Thus, they were unknown and not included in the City’s consideration of the helistop. 2 Please refer to Chapter 3.2, Hazards, Section 3.2.2, Regulatory Setting, for additional information on the regulatory setting for the project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-3 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description Proposed Helistop Modifications (Proposed Project) Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ and FAA’s conditions were determined to be unacceptable due to potential impacts on off-site land uses as well as concerns over crosswind safety conditions for helicopter operations on approach or departure. Therefore, the applicant undertook a site selection process to find a site that would be acceptable to the aeronautics agencies. This process resulted in the proposed project. The proposed interim helistop site was submitted to the FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ and Riverside County ALUC. In response, the FAA provided an airspace determination letter, which stated that the FAA analysis determined that the proposed helistop is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and use of the helistop would not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace. The FAA letter concluded that it does not object to the proposed helistop (FAA, 2013). Also, on February 13, 2014, the Riverside County ALUC found that the proposed helistop is consistent with the countywide policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. In addition, on June 12, 2013, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics signed and stamped a Heliport Layout Plan granting “Conditional Plan Approval” for the proposed helistop (a formal application package cannot be submitted to Caltrans Aeronautics until the City of Temecula approves the project). All three of these letters are provided in Appendix A. 2.2 Project Objectives The primary objectives of the hospital project as listed in the 2006 EIR and 2008 SEIR are as follows. City Objectives The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area as listed in the 2006 EIR and 2008 SEIR 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. • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-4 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description Applicant Objectives The objectives of UHS for the proposed project as listed in the 2006 EIR and 2008 SEIR are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices. • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. • Provide medical offices, a cancer center, and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who require ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Proposed Project Objectives The proposed relocation of the City-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, state-of-the-art emergency medical facilities and 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 objectives of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and ensuring the compatibility of development on the hospital site with surrounding uses in terms of minimizing potential hazards/safety impacts. The proposed 5,000-square-foot storage building would be developed at the helistop location previously approved by the City, 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 (I-15) and Temecula Parkway. The site is 2 miles east of I-15. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-5 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2010 02 Miles Temecula City Boundary PROJECT SITE 2. Project Description 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, on-site driveways, parking lots, and infrastructure for all master planned buildings on the site. Phase 1 of the hospital began operations on October 14, 2013. 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 City-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 Phase IV. As provided previously in Section 2.1, development of the future hospital tower would occur in Phase IV, after completion of the MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings and the associated parking facilities. 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 Phase II, which is to occur next, in the northeastern portion of the project site at the previously City- 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 by the City in 2008). 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 EIR, 2008 SEIR, or 2011 Addendum (described in Chapter 1, Introduction). Helistop Relocation As shown in Figure 2-4, the City-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. However, this design does not meet current FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics criteria. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-7 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 M a r g a r i t a R d De Portola R d M a r g a r i t a R d PROJECT SITEPROJECT SITE De Portola R d 79 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map SOURCE: Google Maps 0 300 Feet INTERIM HELISTOP 0 200 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 2-3Proposed Hospital Storage Buildingand Interim Helistop Location SOURCE: HMC Architects FAA an d C a l t r a n s D i v i s i o n o f A e r o n a u t i c s Recom m e n d e d F l i g h t P a t h Interim Helistop Existing Helistop 79 PROJECT SITE EQUESTRIAN TRAIL M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d R e d h a w k P k w y R e d h a w k P k w y Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y C o u n t r y G l e n W y C o u n t r y G l e n W y D o n a L y n o r a D o n a L y n o r a Pi o P i c o R d Pi o P i c o R d V i l l a D e l S u r D r V i l l a D e l S u r D r De Portola R d De Portola R d Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 2-4Existing and Proposed Interim andPermanent Helistop Locations SOURCE: Heliplanners 0 200 Feet 2. Project Description Caltrans Aeronautics conducted a preliminary review of the City-approved helistop, and determined that the single flight path is required to be rotated clockwise (approximately 36 degrees) to clear the Madera Vista apartments, or that red obstruction lights are required to be installed on the Madera Vista apartment buildings. In addition, the FAA reviewed the City- approved helistop and determined that it requires a second flight path in a northwestern direction that would cross directly over the Los Ranchitos neighborhood and removing or trimming the height of trees that are located within the drainage adjacent to the hospital. Any work in the drainage area, including tree trimming or removal, would require approvals and/or permits from county, state, and federal resource agencies. The City and hospital determined that the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ and FAA’s conditions were unacceptable due to potential impacts on off-site land uses as well as concerns over crosswind safety conditions for helicopter flights on approach or departure. As a result, 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 be 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. Pursuant to the FAA obstruction clearance criteria enforced by Caltrans Aeronautics, the helistop in this location would be developed on top of a 5.5-foot-high berm from which helicopters would land and take off. In Phase IV of the project, after completion of the MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings and the associated parking facilities, 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 the interim and the permanent, are designed in compliance with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics flight path and obstruction clearance 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 to 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 and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requirements. The prevailing wind direction in the project region is to the east, except during Santa Ana wind conditions that blow westward. Helicopters typically approach and land heading into the wind for safety and performance reasons; 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-11 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description 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 would be developed on top of a 5.5-foot-high berm and would provide a concrete circular 48-foot-diameter touchdown and liftoff (TLOF) area from which helicopters would land and take off. As shown on Figure 2-5, Helistop Design Characteristics, the helistop would have an 87-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 “TVH,” 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 Disabilities Act–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 5-foot-tall security fence. The permanent helistop would be located on the roof of the future hospital tower during Phase IV of the project. The design of the helistop would be similar to the interim location but would consist of a 48-foot by 48-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. In addition to the existing hospital building and parking lot lighting for hospital operations, the hospital has red obstruction lights installed on light standards in the hospital parking lot, a three- colored (green, white, and yellow) heliport beacon light, and a lighted windcone installed on the hospital building to provide pilots with wind information during landings and takeoffs. Implementation of the proposed project would add lighting that 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-12 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description 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 in 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. The storage building would be used to store non-hazardous materials such as disaster supplies, “attic stock” for the hospital, and linens. The storage building would not use any machinery or equipment, except for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 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. Helicopter operations associated with the hospital would be intermittent and take place only to transport seriously ill or injured patients to the hospital 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 noise related to the helicopter would last approximately 5 minutes for landing and 5 minutes for takeoff. Typically, the helicopter would occupy the helistop for 30 to 60 minutes, between arrival and departure, during which the helicopter engine is not running. A helicopter operation is defined as a single landing or takeoff; hence, one transport includes two operations (an arrival operation and a departure operation). Since opening of the hospital, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) landing site has experienced, on average, approximately seven helicopter operations per month. This average consists of as few as zero operations (once in March 2014) and as many as 14 operations (once in May 2014) in a month. The number of helicopter operations at the interim and permanent locations is anticipated to be similar to the existing EMS landing site. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-13 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description Based on current operations at the EMS landing site and future anticipated demand, it is conservatively projected that, on average, approximately eight helicopter operations (four arrival and four departure operations) would occur per month over a 12-month period. This would total approximately 96 operations per year. Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations and FAR Part 150 require that the CNEL contours be based on the annual-average day operations over a 365-day period. As with the existing EMS landing site, however, the actual frequency of operations will vary depending on the timing of medical emergencies and needed transport for critical care. It is anticipated that two emergency medical helicopter operators, Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services, flying Airbus Helicopters EC135 would use the helistop to transport patients. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-14 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 2-5 Interim Helistop Design Characteristicsand Permanent Helistop Locations Site Layout Heliport Detail Southwest Elevation SOURCE: Heliplanners 0 400 Feet 0 40 Feet 0 40 Feet Three-Color (Green-White-Yellow) Heliport Beacon Internally Lighted Windcone with Red Obstruction Light Pole-Mounted Dual Red LED Obstruction Light with Relay Green LED Flush-Mount Perimeter Light 3M “Raised Pavement Marker” with Two Yellow Lenses or Similar (Optional) Portable Fire Extinguisher Elevations and Airspace Contours To Be Removed, Lowered, or Relocated for Obstruction Clearance, as Appropriate V i l l a D e l S u r D r V i l l a D e l S u r D r P i o P i c o R d P i o P i c o R d De Po r t o l a R d De Po r t o l a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Dartolo RdDartolo Rd 79 C o u n t r y G l e n W y C o u n t r y G l e n W y Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2-6 Hospital Storage Building Elevations South Elevation East Elevation West Elevation North Elevation SOURCE: HMC Architects 0 10 Feet 2. Project Description 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 Riverside County ALUC. The anticipated actions and approvals related to the proposed project are listed below. Agency Action City of Temecula • Development Plan Major Modification including design and site review. City of Temecula • CUP Major Modification for proposed interim and permanent helistops and storage building. City of Temecula • City Council approval of project and certification of SEIR. State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) • Review and issuance of construction permits for windcone lighting, 3-color helistop beacon, and red obstruction lights for the proposed interim location have occurred. Full OSHPD review and approval for the future hospital tower and permanent helistop location would occur in the future. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) • 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 extended on September 4, 2015; 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 Helistop 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 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 on-site inspections of hospital helistops throughout the state to ensure continued compliance with its design requirements. The California’s Public Utilities Code 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-17 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description 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 of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency. 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 and 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-18 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description 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. Reference Planning Jurisdiction Development Type Description Status 1 City of Temecula Residential A Tentative Tract Map application to create 7 single- family residential lots located approximately 15,000 feet south of Santiago Road and east of Ynez Road. Proposed 2 City of Temecula Institutional A Major Modification application for the UHS Temecula Regional Hospital to modify the phasing of the project, 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. Phase I Complete (140 beds) 3 City of Temecula Office A Development Plan application to allow for the 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. Under Construction 4 City of Temecula Commercial/ Residential Redevelopment of the existing 305-acre site into a Resort 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. Proposed 5 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan to construct 74 single family homes on a condominium at the southeast corner of Peach Tree Street and Deer Hollow Way. Under Construction 6 City of Temecula Residential Specific Plan by Ambient Communities referred to as "Altair," is located on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula west of Old Town. The proposed plan includes up to 1,750 residential units, an elementary school, neighborhood commercial, a clubhouse, civic site, parks, trails, and hillside preservation. The project also includes off-site improvements for public infrastructure including, construction of the Western Bypass Corridor bridge over Murrieta Creek, road widening of Vincent Moraga, construction of Main Street north of Pujol, and off-site sewer, water and dry utility extensions. This project includes a General Plan Amendment, Subdivision Map, Development Agreement. Proposed 7 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan to construct a 4,700 square foot 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. Approved Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-19 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2. Project Description Figure No. Reference Planning Jurisdiction Development Type Description Status 8 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan for the construction of two structures totaling 54,860 square feet for medical offices generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 400 feet east of the Jedediah Smith and Temecula Parkway intersection. Complete 9 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan to construct a two-story, 11,982 square foot medical office building on a 0.92 acre vacant lot located at the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora. Under Construction 10 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan to construct a 29,211 square foot, two-story professional office building located on the west side of Avenida de Missiones, approximately 200 feet south of Temecula Parkway. Under Construction 11 City of Temecula Residential A Multi-family residential Development Plan to construct the 288 apartment units at the northwest corner of Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway. Complete 12 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan to construct 186 single-family attached units (90 rowhome units and 96 motorcourt units) at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. Developed and Operating 13 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan to construct a 140 unit attached 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. Under Construction 14 City of Temecula Residential A Tentative Tract Map revision for 59 detached condominium units located at the northeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Road. Approved 15 City of Temecula Commercial A Major Modification to Development Plan to construct a one-story, 12,554 square foot outpatient surgery center building on a 1.01 acre vacant lot located at the northeast corner of Temecula Parkway and Rancho Pueblo Road. Developed and Operating SOURCE: City of Temecula Planning Department, 2016. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-20 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( V A I L R A N C H P K W Y M E A D O W P K W Y D E P O R T O L A R D M A R G A R I T A R D §¨¦15 UV79 YN E Z R D PAUBA R D SANTIAG O R D PE C H A N G A P K W Y B U T T E R F I E L D S T A G E R D O L D T O W N F R O N T S T FAIRVI E W A V E D I A Z R D 3 5 6 7 8 9 4 2 1 15 11 12 10 14 13 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 2-7 Cumulative Projects SOURCE: ESRI; City of Temecula. Project Location 0 3,200 Feet !(#Cumulative Projects City of Temecula 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 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). In addition, the Initial Study determined that all other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)-related environmental topic areas would not be impacted to such a degree as to require analysis in this RDSEIR-2016. Therefore, environmental impact areas evaluated within this RDSEIR-2016 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 1 of the hospital. This includes a five-story hospital tower, on-site driveways, parking lots, and infrastructure for all master planned buildings on the site. 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 feet above mean sea level (amsl), and the elevation at De Portola Road is approximately 1,065 feet amsl. North of De Portola Road, the terrain transitions to rolling hillsides, with the highest elevation above De Portola Road in the project vicinity rising to approximately 1,223 feet amsl, 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 corner 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. The distance from Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-1 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics the interim helistop site to the nearest residential property line is approximately 225 feet, and the distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest residential unit (the Madera Vista apartments) is approximately 305 feet. 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 uses 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 1 footcandle to ensure safe nighttime conditions. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-2 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics 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. 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, nighttime lighting impacts would be significant if light substantially interferes with, or intrudes into, sensitive land uses (including residences), or substantially impacts views in the area. Glare would be considered a significant impact if it results 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. • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As determined in the Notice of Preparation/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 with the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, no further analysis of these topics is included. Light and Glare Implementation of the proposed project would install a 48-foot-diameter interim helistop in the western portion of the project site toward the professional office and commercial uses to the west of the site. Pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Aeronautics Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-3 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics requirements, the interim helistop would consist of a concrete platform that would be constructed on a 5.5-foot-high berm from which helicopters would land and take off and would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations. In addition to the existing red obstruction lights on parking lot light standards, red obstruction lights, a three-colored (green, white, and yellow) heliport beacon light, and alighted windcone are currently installed on the hospital building. The interim helistop would also 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 interim helistop perimeter lights would be on for approximately 20 minutes immediately prior to and during landing and takeoff events. The obstruction lights that are currently in place at the hospital are on from dusk to dawn, and will remain on a dusk-dawn schedule when the permanent helistop is in place. The helistop lighting would be on intermittently; only prior to and during nighttime landings or takeoffs. The total number of helistop operations (landings and take-offs) 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 during Phase IV of the project. The design of the helistop would be similar to the interim location but would consist of a 48-foot by 48-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 and the have perimeter lights would be on a dusk to dawn schedule. 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 design 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. 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 would not spillover onto adjacent uses. As described, the distance from the interim helistop site to the nearest residential property line is approximately 225 feet, and the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-4 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest residential unit (the Madera Vista apartments) is approximately 305 feet. Because of this distance, and the focused lighting within the urban environment, the use of standard helicopter lights during periodic helicopter flights would not result in significant lighting impacts. In addition to the lighting described previously, 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 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 would be oriented to avoid off-site light spillover onto adjacent properties, consistent with the City’s lighting standards. The proposed helistop lighting which is not regulated by 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. While some lights related to the interim helistop may 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 for approximately 20 minutes immediately 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 on-site 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. Lead-in lights would not be required or installed at the permanent rooftop helistop facility; however, the rooftop helistop perimeter lights would be on a dusk-to-dawn schedule. Some of the rooftop lighting from the permanent helistop could be visible from nearby residences and other land uses, but would be consistent with the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-5 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics existing hospital lighting and lighting from the surrounding land uses, 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 security 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. 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, with the limited lighting required for the proposed storage building that would also comply with the City’s lighting regulations, 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 ( 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 developed a 5.5-foot-high berm. 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. Because of 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 have a limited contribution to the existing nighttime lighting, and with compliance to City lighting requirements, would not 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-6 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics 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 corner of Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora (identified as 9 on Figure 2-7), and 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 requirements to minimize illumination levels onto adjacent property lines, direct lighting down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels, and the use of low- pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures. As a result, implementation of the lighting and glare generated from the City-compliant lighting at the already developed hospital site that would include the new interim and permanent helistop and storage building when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to lighting and glare. Cumulative impacts are less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-7 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (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 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, on-site driveways, parking lots, infrastructure for all master planned buildings on the site. The helistop that was approved by the City with the hospital project is not yet developed. However, the hospital currently uses the City-approved helistop site as an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) landing site when necessary. To ensure safety during these procedures, the City of Temecula Fire and Police Departments coordinated with the hospital to secure the helicopter landing area. As described later in the Regulatory Setting section, the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 21 Section 3527(g) states that a site (such as the project site) can be used for the landing and taking off of 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 onboard over a 12-month period. 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 airport’s traffic pattern. 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 • Multi-family residential, commercial, medical office, and a flood control channel are to the east Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-1 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Aviation Administration The Federal Aviation Administration (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 Advisory Circular (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, and flight path dimensions. 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 nonhazardous 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: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-2 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards • 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. • 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. 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 • 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, and (c) a transitional surface that extends outward and upward from the primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of 2:1 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. Technically, FAR Part 77 applies only to “public use” airports and heliports. However, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics applies the same criteria to the proposed project’s “private use” helistop. 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 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, Title 21 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-3 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards 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 within 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 (heliports) 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 Services Helicopter Landing Site is defined in CCR, Title 21, Section 3527(g) as follows: A site used for the landing and taking off of 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 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-4 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards 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 (ALUCP). 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 ALUCP that are related to implementation of the proposed project. 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-5 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards • 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. • 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. Safety Hazards The proposed project would modify the City-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 City-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 Phase IV. The helistop would be a location designed for the transport of patients, and would not include fueling, service, long-term parking, or storage of helicopters or related equipment at the site. An average of eight helicopter operations are anticipated to occur per month (four departures and four arrivals), although actual frequency would depend on medical needs. The proposed storage building would be located at the previously City-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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-6 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards route incoming flights from the east and departing flights would leave the helistop heading west, and have been designed to avoid the existing five‐story 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 outside of the two proposed flight paths for the interim helistop, 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 obstruction clearance. 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 1 foot vertical for every 8 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 the airspace. 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 ALUCP. 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. 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-7 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards 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 / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (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 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 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 0 or 1 3 2 or 3 2 4 to 9 1 10 or more 0 SOURCE: United States Department of Labor OSHA, 2014. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-1 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 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 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels. Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.3-1. 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. Community noise is variable throughout a day, from slowly changing background noise as activity levels in an area change and short-duration, single- event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily heard. Because the community noise environment changes from instant to instant, measurements of noise exposure over a period of time are used to characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Leq: The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is used to describe noise over a specified period of time in terms of a single numerical value; the Leq of a time-varying signal and that of a steady signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The Leq may also be referred to as the average sound level. Lmax: The maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Lmin: The minimum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Lx: The noise level exceeded X% of a specified time period. For instance, L50 and L90 represent the noise levels that are exceeded 50 percent and 90 percent of the time, respectively. Ldn: Also termed the DNL, the Ldn is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after an addition of 10 dB to measured noise levels between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account nighttime noise sensitivity. CNEL: CNEL, or Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day with additional weightings for noise events occurring in the evening (i.e., 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) periods. During the evening period, each event is multiplied by 3, which adds 4.77 dB to each event. At night, each event is multiplied by 10, which adds 10 dB to each event. The evening and Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-2 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 3.3-1 Effects of Noise on People SOURCE: ESA 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION LETTERS OF PROTEST Rock Band Inside Subway Train (New York) Food Blender at 3 Ft. Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Shouting at 3 Ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Large Business Office Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. COMMON INDOORNOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOORNOISE LEVELS NOISELEVEL(dBA, Leq)PUBLIC REACTION Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. Noisy Urban Daytime Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. Commercial AreaHeavy Traffic at 300 Ft. Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Rural Nighttime COMPLAINTS LIKELY COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS RARE ACCEPTANCE 4 Times As Loud Twice As Loud 1/2 As Loud 1/4 As Loud REFERENCE Small Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Library Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Daytime 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise nighttime weightings account for additional sensitivity to noise events in each of those periods. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development regulations require use of the CNEL metric, which as described above, provides additional weightings for the evening and nighttime noise events. 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 four categories: • Subjective effects (e.g., dissatisfaction, annoyance) • Interference effects (e.g., communication, sleep, and learning interference) • Physiological effects (e.g., startle response) • Physical effects (e.g., hearing loss, sleep interference) Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. The principal human responses to noise exposure are related to subjective effects and interference with activities. Interference with daily activities includes interference with human communication activities, such as normal conversations, watching television, telephone conversations, and interference with sleep. Sleep interference effects can include both awakening and arousal to a lesser state of sleep. With regard to the subjective effects, the responses of individuals to similar noise events are diverse and are influenced by many factors, including the type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise, the appropriateness of the noise to the setting, the duration of the noise, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs, individual noise sensitivity, and habituation to noise. In 2008, the American National Standards Institute published a standard method of estimating sleep disturbance that divided the population into two groups, based on their habituation to the noise source. The study determined that a population that has not been habituated to a nighttime noise wake up more often than a habituated population. A population habituated to common noise sources in their environment woke substantially less than a population newly exposed to noise. Similarly, in 2008 the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise (FICAN) published a report that summarized sleep disturbance research relative to aircraft noise, and noted that a limited number of the exposed population is awakened. Per the 2008 FICAN report, the exposed population has less than a 5 percent probability of awakening from a single-event, which produces a single indoor noise level of 85 dB or less. However, should the noise of 85 dB occur more than four hours after falling to sleep, the probability of awakening could increase beyond 5 percent. In addition, indoor noise of 78 dB is anticipated to result in the probability of awakening remaining at or below 5 percent as long as the event occurs within 6 hours of the time since falling to sleep. Furthermore, two indoor noise events of 78 dB in one night (such as noise from a helicopter transport) would result in the probability of awakening of approximately 6 percent of the population (FICAN, 2008). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-4 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise In regard to 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 noise level, the following relationships occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived. • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-perceivable difference. • A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected. • A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause adverse response (Caltrans, 1998). These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a nonlinear 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 Hz, while humans hear lower and smaller frequency ranges, 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 indicate 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, Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-5 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 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 typically 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 dB for hard sites and 7.5 dB for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop- off rate) are 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 dB (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such as traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a rate between 3 dB for hard sites and 4.5 dB for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement (Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, 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 distance from the interim helistop site to the nearest residential property line is approximately 225 feet, and the distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest residential unit (the Madera Vista apartments) is approximately 305 feet. In addition, a church is located 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 • Multi-family residential, commercial, medical office, and a flood control channel to the east and northeast Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-6 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Existing Ambient Noise Levels The ambient noise environment on and nearby the hospital site are shown on Table 3.3-1, which provides the measured noise at five representative locations (shown in Figure 3.3-2). TABLE 3.3-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Location Number Location Description Measurement Period Measured Average Noise Level, dB AMBIENT 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 4 On project site, at offset of 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 were collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute S1.4-1971. 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Regulations Under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations (Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 772), noise abatement must be considered for hospital sites; these criteria indicate that the Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq) during the noisiest 1-hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dB at exterior areas or 52 dB within the interior of a hospital or medical building. In addition, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Guidelines, 14 CFR Part 150, 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 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-7 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations 0 1000 Feet PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE PROJECT SITE 79 Site 5 Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 Site 4 Temec u l a P k w y Temec u l a P k w y Temec u l a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d R e d h a w k P k w y R e d h a w k P k w y R e d h a w k P k w y De P o r t o l a R d De P o r t o l a R d De P o r t o l a R d 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 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 CNEL 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. The State of California 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 dB 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 dB Ldn 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 dB Ldn. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-9 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-2 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (Ldn 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, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 75 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters --- 50 - 70 --- above 70 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports --- 50 - 75 --- above 75 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 --- 67 - 75 above 75 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 75 --- 70 - 80 above 80 Office Buildings, Business and Professional Commercial 50 - 70 67 - 77 above 75 --- Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 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. 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 DHS 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-10 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-3 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dB) Land Use Normally Acceptablea Conditionally Acceptableb Normally Unacceptablec Clearly 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, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheatersf --- 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. d 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 Noise Element Table N-2. 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 Table N-2, 2005. 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 dB Ldn or CNEL or less. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-11 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 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. 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-12 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 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 excerpts 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 Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-5. 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 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. 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. An application for a construction-related exception shall be made on a minor exception form. The form shall be submitted in writing at least 3 working days (72 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-13 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-4 CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE LAND USE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (dB Lmax) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Residential Hillside 45 65 Rural Very Low Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/701 High 45 701 Commercial and Office Neighborhood — 70 Community 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 — 70/652 1 Maximum exterior noise levels of 70 dB are allowed for multiple-family housing. 2 Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. SOURCE: City of Temecula Municipal Code 9.20.040. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-14 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-5 CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Land Use Noise Exposure (dB Lmax) 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotel Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Parks Golf Course, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved meet conventional Title 24 construction standards. No special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development shall be undertaken only after a detailed noise analysis is made and noise reduction measures are identified and included in the project design. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development is discouraged. If new construction is proposed, a detailed analysis is required, noise reduction measures must be identified, and noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken. SOURCE: City of Temecula Municipal Code 9.20.040. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-15 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 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 INM 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 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 (e.g., 60 and 65 dB CNEL). 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 (CNEL) 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 p.m. – 9:59:59 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00:00 p.m .– 6:59:59 a.m.) 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 Riverside County ALUCP utilizes CNEL to assess noise impacts from flight operations and identifies the following three criteria: 1) for locations having an existing ambient noise level of 55 dB CNEL or less, a CNEL increase of 5 dB or more is deemed significant; 2) for locations having an existing ambient noise level between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, a CNEL increase of 3 dB or more is deemed significant; and 3) for locations having an existing ambient noise level of more than 60 dB CNEL, a CNEL increase of 1.5 dB or more is deemed significant. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-16 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Single-Event Noise Metrics As previously discussed, no federal, state, or regional compatibility criteria has been established for single-event noise metrics such as Lmax. Lmax represents the maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. However, the City of Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.20.040 provides maximum sound level standards. As described above and listed in Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-5, the maximum exterior Lmax noise level of 65 dB is allowed for single- family residential, and 70 dB is allowed for multiple-family residential. The regulations of the City’s Municipal Code are applied to the single-event noise analysis provided in the following pages. The CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which permanent and temporary increases in ambient noise are considered “substantial.” However, for the purpose of the project’s single-event noise analysis, it is assumed that project operations would constitute a significant impact if the project would result in an exceedance of the City’s allowable exterior noise levels. The City Municipal Code Section 9.20.040, General Sound Level Standards, provide maximum noise standards that are general in nature, and are intended to apply to typical community and land use noise sources. In addition, the City's Municipal Code Section 9.20.070 provides specific exemptions from sound emanating from all stationary and mobile equipment used by emergency personnel. The use of 65 dB Lmax for single-family residential, and 70 dB Lmax for multiple- family residential (which are the maximum noise levels allowed per City Code Section 9.20.040) for threshold criteria related to substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels, is extremely conservative because the criteria does not provide for an allowable increase in noise beyond the code requirements that may not be perceivable. As described above, a noise increase of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected. Sleep Disturbance There is no federal, state, or regional regulatory standards related to noise related sleep disturbance. However, as described above, in 2008 FICAN published a report that summarized sleep disturbance research relative to aircraft noise, and determined that the population exposed to two indoor noise events of 78 dB in a single night (such as from a helicopter transport) would result in the probability of awakening of approximately 6 percent of the population. Based on the data from the 2008 FICAN study, it is assumed that an indoor noise level of 78 dB would be significant, as this is the sound level at which helicopter noise would begin to substantially affect the sleep of residents in the surrounding. Because the use of the helicopter (shown in Table 3.3-6), would occur during the daytime 80 percent of the time, in the evening 10 percent of the time, and during the night time (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) 10 percent of the time, and it is estimated that on average eight helicopter operations (four arrival and four departure operations) would occur per month, the average nighttime usage of the proposed helistop is projected to be one transport (one arrival and one departure operation) per month. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-17 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Sensitive Receptor Locations Evaluated The hospital site is surrounded by single-family residential, multi-family residential, and an equestrian trail. The specific sensitive receptor sites that are identified for evaluation (shown later in Table 3.3-9) were selected based on their relationship to the proposed interim and proposed helistop sites. Because helicopter noise at sensitive receptors that are closer to the helistop would be greater due to the proximity of helicopters descending to land at and ascending to depart from the helistop, this noise evaluation has identified 10 of the closest sensitive receptors that would also be located under the proposed flight paths. This methodology is intended to identify the greatest anticipated noise impact that is representative of effects to the project vicinity. Of course, the noise level experienced at a particular dwelling will depend on its location relative to the flight paths and direction of aircraft operations (arrivals or departures). The 10 sensitive receptor locations are listed in Table 3.3-9, and the proposed flight paths are shown in Figures 3.3-3 through 3.3-6. Helicopter Operations and Fleet It is anticipated that two local Emergency Medical Services (EMS) helicopter operators, Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services, would use the helistop to transport patients approximately eight times (four arrival operations and four departure operations) per month over a 12-month period. This would total approximately 96 operations per year (one transport 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. The proposed changes to the helistop (i.e., the decommissioning of the interim helistop and operation of the permanent helistop) would not result in an increase in the number of helicopters using the helistop. Thus, the same number of operations was used to calculate the noise exposure for both the interim helistop location and permanent helistop location. The type of helicopter used by Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services that would use the interim and permanent helistops is Airbus Helicopter’s EC135, which is commonly used for medical air transport and currently does not have a noise profile in the INM. However, the EC130 (which does have a noise profile in the INM) is a 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, the EC130 makes an appropriate substitute to use in calculations for the EC135; thus, it was used to model noise from project operations. Time of Day 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 10 daytime operations. This results in a 4.77 dB penalty and a 10 dB penalty for each event during these periods, respectively. The time of day that each operation is anticipated to occur is summarized in Table 3.3-6. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-18 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-6 HELICOPTER OPERATION TIMES OF DAY (CNEL) INM Helicopter Type Daytime (7:00:00 a.m. – 6:59:59 p.m.) Evening (7:00:00 p.m. – 9:59:59 p.m.) Nighttime (10:00:00 p.m. – 6:59:59 a.m.) 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 flight path configurations for both the proposed interim and permanent conditions. Flight corridor use percentages were derived from information provided by Heliplanners, the heliport consultant. Based on this data, use percentages were developed for north-flow and south-flow operations. When operating in a north-flow configuration (in Santa Ana wind conditions, which are winds that originate inland and do not occur as regularly as prevailing winds), 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 that would primarily be used in Santa Ana wind conditions. When operating in a south-flow configuration (in prevailing wind conditions), 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 that would primarily be used in prevailing wind conditions. Future operations were modeled to and from the future permanent helistop location. When operating in a north-flow configuration (in Santa Ana wind conditions), 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 that would primarily be used in Santa Ana wind conditions. When operating in a south-flow configuration Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-19 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 DN E P (D e p a r t u r e N o r t h e a s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) ASW P (Arr i v a l S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 5 Site 9 Site 6A Site 6B Site 6C Site 7 Site 8 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-3 Interim Helistop – North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Site Locations 79 Interim Helistop Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Po r t o l a R d De Po r t o l a R d PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 5 Site 9 Site 6B Site 6C Site 7 Site 8 Site 6A 79 Interim Helistop Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Po r t o l a R d De Po r t o l a R d PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE AN E P (Ar r i v a l N o r t h e a s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) DSW P (De p a r t u r e S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-4 Interim Helistop – South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Site Locations DNE P (De p a r t u r e N o r t h e a s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) ASW P (Arr i v a l S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 5 Site 9 Site 6B Site 6C Site 7Site 6A Site 8 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-5 Permanent Helistop – North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Site Locations Permanent Helistop Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Porto l a R d De Porto l a R d PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise (in prevailing wind conditions), 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 that would primarily be used in prevailing wind conditions. Flight corridor use percentages are anticipated to occur as shown in Tables 3.3-7 and 3.3-8. TABLE 3.3-7 EC-130 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES – INTERIM LOCATION 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 TABLE 3.3-8 EC-130 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES – PERMANENT LOCATION 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% SOURCE: Heliplanners, 2013 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-23 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 5 Site 9 Site 6B Site 6C Site 7 Site 6A Site 8 ANE P (Ar r i v a l N o r t h e a s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) DSW P (De p a r t u r e S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Porto l a R d De Porto l a R d PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 Permanent Helistop Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-6 Permanent Helistop – South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Site Locations 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the State 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne 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 2 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 Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study (see Appendix A), implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise, or noise impacts related to a public airport. Therefore, no further analysis of these topics is included. 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 helistop and the various hospital structures have been previously analyzed in the previous environmental documents prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital (which are described in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this RDSEIR-2016 and incorporated by reference). Construction of the proposed helistop locations and storage building would use the same types of equipment that have been (and would continue to be) used to construct the hospital facilities. Development of the relocated interim helistop and new storage building would not increase temporary construction activity noise levels beyond those generated by construction of the other hospital facilities, which were previously analyzed in the approved 2008 Final SEIR. Other hospital facilities, such as the roadways, parking lots, and future building sites are located closer to sensitive receptors than the proposed storage building. Hence, the maximum noise from construction on the project was previously evaluated, and there would be no substantial increase in construction noise impacts as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, the analysis, findings, and mitigation measures from the previously approved 2008 Final SEIR and 2011 Addendum to the 2008 Final SEIR are incorporated by reference into this RDSEIR- 2016. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-25 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Helicopter Noise CNEL Noise Standards and Impacts The proposed interim helistop would be located on a mound/berm that would be approximately 5.5 feet above ground level on the western side of the hospital property at an elevation of 1,060 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The permanent helistop is planned to be located on the roof of a future second hospital tower at an elevation of 1,145 feet amsl. Using the INM, the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours have been prepared for the interim and permanent helistop locations and are shown in Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8. 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 helistop 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 2.6 acres and the permanent helistop 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 3.1 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 helistop 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 nonhazardous materials such as disaster supplies, “attic stock” for the hospital, and linens. The storage building would not use any machinery or equipment, except for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC]) equipment that is similar to those used in 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 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the helicopter flights at both the interim and permanent locations are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, the average noise increase (CNEL) resulting from the proposed helistop project would not result in a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula General Plan. 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 previously noted, 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. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) criteria (Policy 4.1.4) states that the maximum CNEL considered normally acceptable for development of new single- family residential land uses in the vicinity of an air facility is 60 dB. Thus, new single-family residential uses that are planned within the vicinity of an air facility should have an existing ambient environment lower than 60 dB CNEL. For other 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-26 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-7 Interim Helistop – CNEL Contours SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 Feet 79 Interim Helistop PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y De Porto l a R d De Porto l a R d Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-8 Permanent Helistop – CNEL Contours SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 Feet 79 Permanent Helistop PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y De Porto l a R d De Porto l a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from use of the proposed helistops are completely contained within the hospital campus (Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8). There are no single-family residential land uses within the 60 dB CNEL contour because it is contained within the hospital campus. In addition, there are no other sensitive land uses within the 65 dB CNEL contour because it is also 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 ALUCP. Short-Term Noise Standards and Impacts The City of Temecula Municipal Code identifies noise standards as 65 dB Lmax for single-family residential units and 65–70 dB Lmax for multi-family residential units. Short-term noise impacts associated with the interim and permanent helistop locations have been modeled at various locations surrounding the project site, and are depicted in Figure 3.3-3. Table 3.3-9 shows the single-event (Lmax, the maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time) noise levels that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the interim helistop at those locations. TABLE 3.3-9 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE INTERIM HELISTOP Site Number Site Description/ Address WEST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) EAST FLOW (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 60.9 52.0 52.0 65.6 2 30955 De Portola Road adjacent to portion of Equestrian Trail 73.3 85.0 85.5 74.5 3 31775 De Portola Road 59.6 82.7 77.8 59.6 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 73.2 73.2 72.8 75.6 6A Direct Overflight of Equestrian Trail 76.3 93.4 100.8 77.6 6B* Equestrian Trail Location B 67.9 83.5 90.8 68.5 6C* Equestrian Trail Location C 81.0 81.0 81.0 85.2 7 Madera Vista 62.9 76.9 71.9 62.8 8 43941 Via Montalban 49.7 80.6 70.2 49.6 9 David Ln / Kevin Pl 75.7 57.2 57.2 83.7 NOTE: Receptor receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-29 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise The duration of the maximum single-event noise listed in Table 3.3-9 would be limited, occurring approximately eight times per month (four departure operations and four arrival operations) as the helicopter is approaching and departing the helistop. In prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital), the noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites listed in Table 3.3-9, and would result in a maximum noise level of 93.4 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. In Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard at all of the receptor sites and result in a maximum noise level of 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Table 3.3-10 shows the single-event noise levels (Lmax) that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the permanent helistop that would be located on the roof of the future hospital tower, which would be developed in Phase IV of the hospital development. As shown, in prevailing wind conditions, noise from helicopter operations to and from the permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. In Santa Ana wind conditions, the exterior short-term noise standard would also be exceeded at 9 of the 10 receptor sites and result in a maximum noise level of 87.8 dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. TABLE 3.3-10 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE PERMANENT HELISTOP Site Number Site Description/ Address WEST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) EAST FLOW (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 58.8 48.6 48.6 63.6 2 30955 De Portola Road 71.7 71.7 71.7 73.8 3 31775 De Portola Road 69.9 82.2 82.4 70.9 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 82.1 67.4 67.5 84.3 6A* Equestrian Trail Location A 75.1 75.1 75.1 77.5 6B* Equestrian Trail Location B 69.8 69.7 69.8 71.0 6C* Equestrian Trail Location C 71.9 67.1 67.1 76.3 7 Madera Vista 79.6 89.8 87.8 80.5 8 43941 Via Montalban 53.3 73.8 71.8 53.7 9 David Ln / Kevin Pl 70.3 54.1 54.1 78.4 NOTE: Receptor receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-30 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise As shown in Tables 3.3-9 and 3.3-10, the greatest helicopter noise would be generated from use of the interim site at approximately 5.5 feet off of the ground than from the future rooftop location, where helicopters would be higher and farther from receptors. Similarly, helicopter noise at sensitive receptors closer to the helistop would be greater due to the proximity of helicopters descending to land and ascending to depart the helistop. 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 Lmax, and 65-70 dB Lmax for multi-family residential. As previously described, use of the interim helistop would result in exceedance of this noise standard at all of the receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions, and use of the permanent helistop would result in exceedance of the noise standard at 9 out of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Therefore, the noise from helicopter operations from use of both the proposed interim and permanent helistops would exceed the exterior noise limits identified in the City’s Noise Ordinance. Although medical helicopter noise is exempt from the City’s Municipal Code standards (per Code Section 9.20.030), and flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances and cannot be restricted due to noise (per PUC Section 21662.4. (a)), noise from medical helicopters would substantially exceed the City’s maximum exterior sound levels for single- and multi-family residential uses (as identified Tables 3.3-9 and 3.3-10). As a result, implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the exceedance of noise standards. Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Ambient noise is measured in CNEL, which averages noise over 24 hours. As described previously, the proposed storage building would be used for storage of nonhazardous materials such as disaster supplies, “attic stock” for the hospital, and linens and would not use 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; thus, 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. 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, a CNEL increase of 5 dB or more is deemed significant; for locations having an existing ambient noise level between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, a CNEL increase of 3 dB or more is deemed significant; and for locations having an existing ambient noise level of more than 60 dB CNEL, a CNEL increase of 1.5 dB or more is deemed significant. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-31 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise As shown in Table 3.3-1, ambient noise in the project vicinity ranges from 57.9 to 78.7 dB CNEL. The INM was used to calculate the helicopter-generated CNEL, which was compared to the ambient CNEL values to determine if the receptor sites would experience an increase in CNEL of 3 dB or more at Sites 1 and 2, and 1.5 dB CNEL or more at Sites 3 and 5. As shown in Tables 3.3-11 and 3.3-12, Sites 1 and 2 did not experience an increase of 3 dB CNEL, nor did Sites 3 and 5 experience an increase of 1.5 dB CNEL from operation of the interim or permanent helistops. TABLE 3.3-11 EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE AND CNEL NOISE WITH THE INTERIM SITE Site Number Site Description/ Address 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 59.6 26.9 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 58.9 46.6 59.1 +0.2 3 31775 De Portola Road 63.5 38.7 63.5 0.0 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 78.7 47.2 78.7 0.0 SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. TABLE 3.3-12 EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE AND CNEL NOISE WITH THE PERMANENT SITE Site Number Site Description/ Address AMBIENT CNEL, dB Helicopter CNEL, dB Combined Ambient and Helicopter CNEL, dB Difference Between Ambient and Helicopter CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 59.6 24.0 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 58.9 44.2 59.0 +0.1 3 31775 De Portola Road 63.5 43.9 63.5 0.0 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 78.7 41.3 78.7 0.0 SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-32 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise In addition, the helicopter-generated CNEL at Sites 6A through 9 (as listed in Table 3.3-13) would be below the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity (57.9 to 78.7 dB CNEL as listed in Table 3.3-1). Thus, the helicopter noise at these locations would not result in a 1.5 dB or more increase CNEL ambient noise. TABLE 3.3-13 HELICOPTER CNEL NOISE FOR SITES 6 THOUGH 9 Site Number Site Description/ Address Helicopter CNEL, dB for Interim Site Helicopter CNEL, dB for Permanent Site 6A* Equestrian Trail Location A 50.8 47.4 6B* Equestrian Trail Location B 42.6 42.2 6C* Equestrian Trail Location C 53.5 40.3 7 Madera Vista 37.7 53.3 8 43941 Via Montalban 37.0 32.8 9 David Ln / Kevin Pl 35.1 31.6 SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. 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 Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels As described previously and listed in Table 3.3-1, ambient noise in the project vicinity ranges from 57.9 dB to 78.7 dB CNEL. Operation of both the interim and permanent helistops would result in substantial short-term increases in ambient noise from helicopter overflight. The duration of the maximum helicopter noise would be limited and occur as helicopters arrive and depart the proposed helistops, which would occur approximately eight times a month (four departure operations and four arrival operations). As described previously in the methodology discussion, for the purpose of the project’s single- event noise analysis, it is assumed that project operations would result in a significant impact if the project would result in an exceedance of the City’s allowable exterior noise levels. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-33 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise In prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital), the periodic noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop would result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise at 9 of the 10 receptor sites, and would result in a maximum noise level of 93.4 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. In Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise to and from the interim helistop would also result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise at all of the receptor sites, and would expose areas to maximum noise levels of 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. In both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions, the short-term increase in noise from helicopter operations to and from the interim helistop would be substantially louder than existing ambient noise levels, and would occur approximately eight times a month. Use of the proposed permanent helistop in prevailing wind conditions would also result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise at 9 of the 10 receptor sites, and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. In Santa Ana wind conditions, the proposed permanent helistop would also result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise at 9 of the 10 receptor sites, and would and result in a maximum noise level of 87.8 dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. Helicopter noise would be greater from the interim site at approximately 5.5 feet off of the ground (resulting in a maximum noise level of 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 6A, the equestrian trail) than from the future rooftop location, where helicopters would be higher and farther from receptors and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax in prevailing winds at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. In regards to sleep disturbance, as described above, in 2008 FICAN determined that the population exposed to two indoor noise events of 78 dB in a single night (such as from a helicopter transport) would result in the probability of awakening of approximately 6 percent of the population. Based on the data from the 2008 FICAN study, it is assumed that an indoor noise level of 78 dB would be significant, as this is the sound level at which helicopter noise would begin to substantially affect the sleep of residents. In addition, based on the anticipated helicopter use (shown in Table 3.3-6), an average of one transport (one arrival and one departure operation) per month would occur. Typical wood framed residential structures provide exterior to interior noise attenuation of 12 to 17 dBA with open windows and around 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. Assuming limited exterior to interior residential structural attention (i.e. 12 dB with open windows and 20 dB with closed windows) exterior noise levels of 90 and 98 dB would produce respective interior noise levels of 78 dB with open and closed windows. Because there are no recognized federal, state, or regional thresholds of significance regarding number of persons awakened by helicopter operations, the use of the 90 dB exterior noise level, which assumes windows are open, is used to determine areas exposed to a heightened degree of potential for sleep disturbance during nighttime helicopter operations. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-34 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise As shown in Table 3.3-9, use of the interim helistop would result in two equestrian trail locations experiencing helicopter noise in excess of 90 dBA, which do not contain residential structures or sleeping facilities. All of the other sensitive receptor locations would experience helicopter noise that is less than 90 dBA. Therefore, use of the interim helistop would not result in helicopter noise that would substantially affect the sleep of residents. Additionally as shown in Table 3.3-10, the permanent helistop would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and a maximum noise level of 87.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, the use of the permanent helistop would not result in noise levels of 90 dBA, and would also not result in helicopter noise that would substantially affect the sleep of residents. In addition to residential sensitive receptors, the equestrian trail is located adjacent to the perimeter of the hospital site to the north and northwest. As previously discussed, 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 thus 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-noise-related safety hazard to the equestrian trail, 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 and minimize potential conflicts during helicopter operations. In addition, the measure would require pilots to use and be trained on the approved flight paths, maintain a log of helicopter activity to ensure compliance with the flight paths, make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available, and establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. However, it would not reduce the limited but substantial noise levels generated from helicopter overflight from both the interim and permanent helistops to less than significant levels. 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 because of 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 are significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to issuance of a City permit that allows helicopter operations at the interim helistop; the Temecula Valley Hospital shall prepare and implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-35 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise • Prior to helicopter operations, Temecula Valley Hospital shall develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. • All helicopter operations at the interim and permanent helistop locations shall use the approved flight paths, unless safety requires a deviation from any of the flight paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital service contracts with air medical companies shall require that all pilots be routinely trained to ensure that optimum arrival and departure flight paths procedures are followed for each helicopter type that serves Temecula Valley Hospital. Pilots would be instructed in the use of the approved approach and departure flight paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall maintain a log of helicopter activity that shall include a detailed record of the type of reason for the trip, and the dates and times of arrival and departure. If a deviation from prescribed flight paths occurs, the reason for deviation shall be recorded in the log. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable. 3.3.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the proposed project in combination with ambient growth and other development projects and activities 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 or any other aviation-related uses. Nearby cumulative projects involve commercial, office, and residential development that would not result in substantial noise generation. Furthermore, there are no proposed uses that would generate noise, such that it would combine with noise from helicopter flights to result in a significant cumulative impact. The closest cumulative projects are adjacent to the project site and consist of a medical office building, a surgery center, and a professional office building. These uses are complementary and consistent with the hospital uses, and would not generate noise that would combine with the helicopter noise from the project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-36 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Helicopter overflight noise would be substantially louder than existing ambient noise levels and would exceed the City’s Noise Ordinance regulations, as it would be limited to occurring approximately eight times a month. As described in the 2008 Final SEIR and 2010 Addendum to the 2008 Final SEIR, ambulance sirens generate maximum noise levels of 94 to 117.5 dB. However, it is not anticipated that helicopter activity and ambulance sirens would occur at the same time within the same geographic area because ambulances would only use their sirens as necessary on streets and would not use sirens on the project site; conversely, helicopter approaches do not follow roadways and the noise from the helicopter would be greatest at the project site, where ambulance siren noise would not occur. Because operation of both the interim and permanent helistops would result in substantial short- term increases in ambient noise from helicopter overflight, single-event noise impacts from operation of the proposed project at both locations would be significant and unavoidable. As described above, feasible mitigation has been required to mitigate noise impacts to the extent practicable. However, flight related mitigation measures cannot be placed on this type of medical helicopter activity by the City of Temecula to reduce noise impacts because the California 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. Accordingly, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes. Thus, given the significance of the single-event noise impacts here, and in an effort to provide a conservative approach as mandated by CEQA, noise impacts from helicopter operations are deemed to be cumulatively considerable. Because no mitigation is available that would reduce the impact to less than significant levels (for the same reason that it is not available on a project level, namely, the PUC statute), this document conservatively concludes that cumulative, single-event noise impacts from helicopter operations are significant and unavoidable. Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-37 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 CHAPTER 4 Project Alternatives This chapter summarizes the alternatives to the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (proposed project) that were evaluated in the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (2006) and 2008 Supplemental EIR (SEIR) and it evaluates a No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, a No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative, an Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative, and the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. 4.1 Introduction This chapter addresses alternatives to the proposed project and describes the rationale for their evaluation in this Recirculated Draft SEIR (RDSEIR-2016), 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. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). According to the 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). CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) states that an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. In addition, CEQA has no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the “rule of reason.” 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, which means that the alternatives should be limited to those that would avoid or reduce the significant effects of the project and that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered. As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. In addition, 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-1 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives 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 RDSEIR -2016 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)) 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 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts As described in the analysis in Chapter 3, although medical helicopter noise is exempt from the City’s Municipal Code, the helicopter flights that would result from the proposed project would result in a substantial exceedance of the City’s allowable noise levels. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the exceedance of the City’s noise standards. In addition, the project would result in substantial periodic increases in noise that would result in significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of mitigation measures. The periodic noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim and permanent helistop locations would result in a substantial increase in short- term noise events during overflight. In particular, single-event helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop location would exceed the City’s noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites (listed in Table 3.3-9), and would result in a maximum noise level of 93.4 decibels (dB) Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail, in prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital). In Santa Ana wind conditions, single-event helicopter overflight noise would exceed the exterior noise limit at all the receptor sites (listed in Table 3.3-9) and result in a maximum noise level of 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. The proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions (as shown in Table 3.3-10), and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions, and 87.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions, at Site 7, Madera Vista apartments. Because of this, operation of the proposed interim helistop and permanent helistop would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to generation of noise in excess of applicable standards, substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels, and cumulative noise. Feasible mitigation has been Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-2 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives imposed; however, flight restrictive mitigation measures cannot be placed on medical helicopter activity to reduce noise impacts because the California’s Public Utilities Code 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. Thus, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As this is a RDSEIR, it should be noted that the previous CEQA documentation for the overall hospital project, including helicopter operations from the City-approved helistop, also identified short-term, periodic significant and unavoidable noise impacts due to helicopter operations. Therefore, the noise findings of this RDSEIR-2016 are consistent with the previous CEQA findings. 4.3 Alternatives Analyzed and Eliminated Previous Alternatives Analyzed The following project alternatives were examined in the Original Draft EIR dated January 2006: Alternative 1: No Project – No Build Alternative 2: No Project – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site – Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, the Construction of Hospital Only Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative in the Original EIR. 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. Alternatives Analyzed in This Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report The following project alternatives related to the proposed helistop relocation are evaluated in this RDSEIR-2016: • No Project/Existing Condition Alternative • No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative • Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative • Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative • Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-3 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in an EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially reduce any significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(c)). Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, also do not need to be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(3)). Per CEQA, the lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible and warrant further consideration and which are infeasible (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125.6(f)(3)). The following alternatives were initially considered but were eliminated from further consideration in this RDSEIR-2016 because they do not meet the majority of the project objectives, do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts, and/or were otherwise determined to be infeasible. Medical Office Building Sites or Future Building Sites as Interim Helistop Site Alternative Alternatives to use either the planned Medical Office Building (MOB) sites or future building sites (as shown in Figure 2-4) as the helistop site were considered but eliminated from further consideration because these on-site locations are not reasonably available, would not avoid or substantially lessen significant noise impacts, could result in additional impacts that would not occur by the proposed project, and/or use of the locations is infeasible based on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics permitting criteria. Medical Office Building Sites As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, construction of the hospital campus is occurring in six phases. Construction of Phase 1, which includes the new 140-bed, five-story hospital, is complete and the hospital began operations on October 14, 2013. In addition, the sewer, water, gas, electric, and master drainage infrastructure has been installed for all of the master plan buildings. The existing infrastructure was designed and sized to serve the MOB sites in their planned locations and cannot be relocated without reconstructing the existing master infrastructure, which serves the operating hospital. MOB 1 Location: Phase II, which is to occur next, includes development of MOB 1 and a 325- space parking facility; therefore, the location for MOB 1 and its parking facility is not available for helistop use. Additionally, the location of the MOB 1 site is visible from the existing hospital parking lot and from Temecula Parkway. The helistop would have security fencing and lighting that would be more visible in the MOB 1 location than from the proposed interim helistop location. Furthermore, a helistop at the MOB 1 location would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur from the proposed project. Because of the volume of helicopter noise, there is no on-site location that would reduce the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations to less than significant levels. Thus, use of the MOB 1 location for the interim helistop was eliminated from further consideration. MOB 2 Location: Upon completion of Phase II, MOB 2 and a 300 space parking facility would be developed adjacent to the MOB 1 site. Thus, the MOB 2 location would not be available for Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-4 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives use after Phase II. In addition, there are constraints to utilizing the MOB 2 site for the helistop. Because of the east-west wind conditions in the project area, the flight path required to land and depart from the MOB 2 site would result in low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway and would result in obstruction clearance constraints with the MOB 1 building penetrating the transitional surface of the flight path, which is not consistent with Caltrans or FAA safety regulations and may require either a variance or the path may not be approved by the agencies, and would result in hazard impacts. In addition, the existing power lines along the northern side of Temecula Parkway would pose airspace obstruction-clearance impacts and the power lines would be required to include red obstruction lights (requiring Southern California Edison’s [SCE’s] cooperation) or additional red obstruction light poles would need to be installed on the hospital property, adjacent to Temecula Parkway. Thus, impacts related to hazards and aesthetics would result from the airspace obstruction and additional red obstruction light poles. Furthermore, a helistop at the MOB 2 location would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur by the proposed project. Due to the volume of helicopter noise, there is no onsite location that would reduce the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations to less than significant levels. Thus, the use of the MOB 2 location for use as the interim helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Sites The future building and infrastructure locations that are part of the approved hospital campus facilities are not available for the interim helistop location. In addition, none of these locations would avoid or substantially lessen the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations, and were eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Site at the Southeast Corner. Phase II, which is to occur next, entails installation of water-quality infrastructure at the southeast corner of the hospital site that includes an infiltration storm chamber system to receive drainage from a majority of the site. The backbone of the drainage system is installed and has a controlled stormwater outlet system and an infiltration trench in the center of the existing detention basin, which will capture and convey the majority of on-site stormwater to the infiltration storm chamber system. The detention basin and storm chamber area cannot be located under a structure; therefore, this area cannot be used for either buildings or the interim helistop facility. In addition, because of the east-west wind conditions, the flight path required for a helistop in the southeast corner of the hospital site would result in low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway, and would have obstruction clearance constraints related to the trees in the adjacent drainage that would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies to trim, and thus impacts related to hazards would occur. In addition, the existing power lines along the northern side of Temecula Parkway would require additional red obstruction lighting to be installed, which would result in aesthetic impacts. A helistop in this site is also likely to result in low-altitude flights over residential areas both to the south of Temecula Parkway (the Country Glen residential area) and to the east of the drainage (the Madera Vista apartments), which would result in noise impacts to residential areas. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-5 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives Additionally, the southeast corner of the hospital site is visible from Temecula Parkway and adjacent land uses and would have security fencing and lighting that would be more visible than proposed interim helistop. Furthermore, a helistop at the future building site at the southeast corner of the hospital site would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur by the proposed project. As described above, because of the volume of helicopter noise, there is no on-site location that would reduce the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations to less than significant levels. Thus, the use of this location for the interim helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Site at the Western Portion of the Site. Use of the future building site that is located on the western portion of the project site (shown in Figure 2-4) for the helistop would result in a flight path that would have low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora Road, which are both adjacent to the western portion of the project site and could result in hazards due to drivers distracted by helicopter operations. Also, helicopter activity from this location would pose airspace obstruction-clearance conflicts with the power lines; and therefore would be required to include red obstruction lights (requiring SCE’s cooperation) or additional red obstruction lighted poles would need to be installed on the hospital property, adjacent to Temecula Parkway. As stated, this would result in hazards and aesthetics impacts. In addition, low-altitude helicopters would travel over residential area to the south of Temecula Parkway, the adjacent office uses to the west of Dona Lynora, and likely the equestrian trail and residential areas adjacent to the north of the hospital site resulting in significant and unavoidable noise impacts. A helistop at the future building site in the western portion of the project site would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur by the proposed project, as all on-site helistop locations would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to noise. This location would also be required to have a security fence and would be visible from Temecula Parkway and adjacent uses, and would be more visible than proposed interim helistop, which would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. Thus, the use of this location for the helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Site at the Eastern Portion of the Site. There is also a future building site that is located in the eastern portion of the hospital site (shown in Figure 2-4) to the south of the City- approved helistop and to the east of the existing hospital building. This site is closer to sensitive receptors (Site 7, Madera Vista apartments) than both the proposed interim and City-approved helistop sites. As a result, use of this site for the helistop could result in greater impacts to sensitive receptors than the proposed project and would not reduce the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur by the proposed project. In addition, this future building site would have obstruction clearance conflicts related to the trees in the adjacent drainage (that would require approval and permits from state and federal resource Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-6 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives agencies to trim), which would penetrate the transitional surface of a flight path from this location and would result in greater hazards impacts than the proposed project. Thus, the use of the future building site in the eastern portion of the project site for the interim helistop would result in greater noise and hazards related impacts, and significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur from the proposed project would not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, developing a helistop in this portion of the project site was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Site in the Northern Portion of the Site. The future building site to the north of the City-approved helistop site and south of DePortola Road is surrounded by sensitive receptors that include the equestrian trail, the Los Ranchitos residential area, and other single- family residential uses along De Portola Road. This site is closer to sensitive receptors (single-family residential uses) than both the proposed interim and City-approved helistop sites. Noise from helicopter operations from a helistop in this location would directly impact these sensitive uses to a greater degree than the proposed project; thus, would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur by the proposed project. In addition, the interim helistop would be visible to travelers along De Portola Road, and impacts related to aesthetics would also occur. Thus, impacts to sensitive receptors from the helistop and helicopter operations to and from this location would be greater than the proposed project. Thus, the use of this location for the helistop was eliminated from further consideration. 4.4 Hospital 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-7 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Applicant Objectives The objectives of Universal Health Services, Inc., 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. • Provide medical offices, a cancer center, and a fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who require ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Proposed Helistop Project The proposed relocation of the City-approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project objectives listed above. Specifically, the proposed helistop site would provide for superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, state-of-the-art emergency medical facilities and services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed helistop 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 objectives of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter-related noise, hazards, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and ensuring the compatibility of development on the hospital site with surrounding uses in terms of minimizing potential hazards/safety impacts. 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. 4.5 No Project/Existing Condition Alternative Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR shall: “…discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation 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 future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-8 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative assumes that the existing condition would continue and that the City-approved helistop would not be developed. In addition, none of the required implementation measures, such as installing obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings, realignment of the flight path, adding a second egress/ingress flight path, or trimming the trees within the drainage adjacent to the hospital that would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies, would be completed. The proposed storage building would also not be developed. As described in Section 3.2, Hazards, the hospital currently uses the ground surface at the City- approved helistop site, which is located near the northeast corner of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line (shown in Figure 2-4), as an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) landing site when necessary. To ensure safety during EMS medical helicopter operations, the hospital and the City of Temecula Fire and Police Departments have outlined parameters for helicopter use of this location. Under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, these procedures would continue. The California Code of Regulations Title 21 Section 3527(g) states that a site (such as the hospital) can be used for the landing and taking off of 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 onboard over a 12-month period. Currently, the only flight path is the original flight path (shown in Figure 2-4) that travels both to and from the helistop (a true heading of 109 degrees/096 degrees magnetic flight corridor) and crosses over the Madera Vista apartment buildings. However, constraints related to the ground level landing site and the adjacent apartment building and tree obstructions cause pilots to adjust their approach and departure routes. In addition, helicopters need to approach and land heading into prevailing winds for maximum control over the aircraft. Therefore, due to changing wind conditions and existing obstructions, pilots may divert from the original flight path to provide for a safe flight. Environmental Analysis Aesthetics The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would maintain the existing condition and character of the level unpaved, grass-covered helistop location that is located near the northeast corner of the hospital site and surrounded by driveways and a parking area. Existing views of and from the helistop area of the project site would remain the same; however, the remainder of the hospital would continue to be constructed, as approved. Light and glare from helicopter operations would not increase; however, ambient lighting from the remainder of the hospital buildings and parking areas to be constructed with the approved hospital project would increase nighttime lighting. Overall, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project because it would not install the 5.5-foot-high berm, obstruction lights on the existing hospital tower, or any landing site perimeter or lead-in lights, as would occur by the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-9 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives proposed project. However, both the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative and the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics. Hazards The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would continue to use the ground surface at the City- approved helistop site as an EMS landing site when transporting patients via helicopter is necessary. To ensure safety during EMS medical helicopter operations, the hospital and City of Temecula Fire and Police Departments have outlined parameters for helicopter use of this location. Under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative these procedures would continue. The criteria for an EMS landing site do not meet the standards of the FAA’s Heliport Design Guide or the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria for a helistop, which are provided to ensure a safe operating environment for pilot, medical personnel, and patients onboard the helicopter as well as for persons and property on the ground. As described, the FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics require that a helistop in this location be elevated 14 feet off of the ground to meet airspace obstruction clearance criteria related to vehicles on the driveways that are adjacent to the site, and that trees located within the drainage adjacent to the hospital be trimmed to meet obstruction clearance requirements. The FAA also requires that helistops have a second flight path to meet safety recommendations related to wind conditions. In addition, Caltrans Aeronautics Division requires that red obstruction lights be added to the Madera Vista apartment buildings or that the flight path be reoriented toward the south to not over fly those buildings, which would result in crosswind approaches and departures. Because the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative uses the City-approved helistop location as an EMS landing site, which does not implement any of these features that are designed to reduce conflicts with adjacent development and ensure an acceptable level of safety, impacts are greater than the proposed project. In addition to not meeting FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria, the one existing flight path does not allow helicopters to approach and land heading into prevailing winds at all times, which is necessary for maximum control over the aircraft. Therefore, pilots need to divert from the existing flight path to provide for the safest flight in various wind conditions. Additionally, pilots have to maneuver over tall trees in the adjacent off-site drainage, around any vehicles on the driveways near the existing ground level helistop location, and avoid the adjacent apartments that would not have obstruction lights installed. The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, which uses the existing helistop location as an EMS site does not have on-site helistop lighting, that under the proposed project would include perimeter lights surrounding the touchdown and liftoff (TLOF) area and lead-in lights. As a result, pilots do not have the benefit of perimeter lights to outline the helistop at night or directional lights to follow during incoming helicopter flights. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative results in increased impacts related to the safety of persons or property on the ground and objects that extend into the airspace than would occur by the proposed project. Overall, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in greater hazards impacts than the proposed project, which would be reviewed and implemented pursuant to the helistop safety Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-10 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives conditions provided by the FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Noise Construction Noise The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would continue to use the ground surface at the City- approved helistop site. Construction of helistop facilities would not occur under this alternative; thus, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not result in any helistop-related construction noise. However, construction noise related to development of the remaining approved hospital buildings would occur and continue under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative. CNEL Standards The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would continue to use the ground surface at the City-approved helistop location, which is approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. As shown in Figure 4-1, the 65 and 60 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contours that would be generated under this alternative would be contained within the project site. The CNEL 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 established that aircraft noise levels up to 65 dB CNEL are considered compatible with residential uses. Because the 60 dB CNEL contours from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative are completely contained within the hospital campus, a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula General Plan, Title 21, and the Riverside County ALUCP would not occur. Similarly, the 65 and 60 dB CNEL contours generated by the proposed project (both interim and permanent helistops) would be contained within the project site. As a result, CNEL-related noise impacts under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would be less than significant, which is the same as what would occur by 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 (CNEL) would occur if locations with existing ambient noise levels between 55 and 60 dB CNEL result in an increase of 3 dB CNEL, and if locations with existing ambient noise levels of more than 60 dB CNEL have an increase of 1.5 dB CNEL. 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-11 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-1 City Approved Helistop – CNEL Contours SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 Feet NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non-aircraft sources. 79 Approved Helistop PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y De Porto l a R d De Porto l a R d 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-1 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL MEASUREMENTS AND HELICOPTER CNEL NOISE FROM THE CITY-APPROVED 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 CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.6 25.8 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 58.9 46.9 59.2 +0.3 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 63.5 47.5 63.6 +0.1 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 78.7 34.5 78.7 0.0 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. As shown in Table 4-1, Sites 1 and 2 would not experience an increase of 3 dB CNEL, nor would Sites 3 or 5 experience an increase of 1.5 dB CNEL. Overall, the greatest increase in noise would be 0.3 dB CNEL at Site 2, which is below the 1.5 dB threshold. Furthermore, this alternative would not cause an exceedance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria, which sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium-intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing. As a result, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and 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 generated by helicopter operations from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative was prepared. As described previously, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would continue to use both the ground surface at the City-approved helistop location and the one original flight path (shown in Figure 2-4) that crosses over the Madera Vista apartment buildings both to and from the helistop. Table 4-2 shows the single-event noise that is generated from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative as helicopters arrive and depart using the one original flight path (shown in Figure 2-4). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-13 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-2 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FROM THE NO PROJECT/EXISTING CONDITION ALTERNATIVE Site No. Site Location Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB 1 30390 De Portola 48.4 48.5 2 30955 De Portola 75.5 74.1 3 31775 De Portola 76.4 74.6 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 62.5 60.5 6A Equestrian Trail 77.1 75.7 6B Equestrian Trail Overflight 75.0 75.0 6C Equestrian Trail 65.3 64.2 7 Madera Vista 94.0 96.0 8 43941 Via Montalban 57.4 55.1 9 David Ln / Kevin Pl 51.8 51.1 NOTE: Receptor receiving the greatest noise from arrivals and departures is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Level of Noise Impact: As described in the Section 3.3, Noise, significant impacts related to a short- term increase in noise from helicopter operations would occur if the project results in an exceedance of the City’s allowable exterior noise levels. As with the proposed project, the duration of the maximum single-event noise would be limited in frequency occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights), but would result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise. The short-term noise that would result from helicopters using the one existing flight path would have the greatest impact at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments, resulting in a maximum of 94.0 dB Lmax during arrivals and 96.0 dB Lmax during departures, which is a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise. In comparison, helicopter overflight noise from the proposed project would be greatest in Santa Ana wind conditions during use of the proposed interim helistop location, which could expose receptors to noise levels of up to 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Because the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level of 96.0 dB Lmax in a southeastern (similar as Santa Ana winds) flight path, it is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax less than what would occur from operation of the proposed interim helistop. However, for a majority of helicopter operations (the interim and permanent helistop in prevailing winds), the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in a maximum single-event noise level that would be greater than that from the proposed project (94.0 and 96.0 Lmax dB for No Project/Existing Condition Alternative compared to 93.4 and 89.8 Lmax dB for interim and Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-14 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives permanent helistops). Moreover, the maximum noise level at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments, would be substantially lower under both the interim and permanent helistop locations than as compared to the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4.2 also shows that the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in helicopter overflight noise that would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 6 of the 10 receptor sites during arrivals, and at 5 of the 10 receptor sites during departures. In comparison, the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. The proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, compared to the proposed project, the helicopter overflight noise from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at fewer receptor locations in both prevailing and Santa Ana conditions. However, maximum short-term noise levels at the 6 impacted receptor sites during arrivals, and the 5 impacted receptor sites during departures from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would occur more frequently than the proposed project due to the single flight path used for both arrivals and departures. In addition, because pilots may need to adjust their approach and departure routes based on conditions at the time of the flight under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative because of prevailing winds, trees in the drainage, and the existing hospital building, actual helicopter noise at sensitive receptors would vary and could be higher. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Similar to the proposed project, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to noise because the noise from helicopter overflight under this alternative would be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels, and would occur approximately eight times a month (four arrival flights and four departure flights). However, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in a maximum single-event noise level that would be greater than with the proposed project for a majority of flights to and from the hospital. Moreover, although less receptor sites would exceed the short-term noise standard, the affected receptor sites would be impacted more frequently due to the single flight path used for both arrivals and departures, and actual helicopter noise at sensitive receptors could be higher due to variations in the flight path. As such, noise impacts from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would be similar or potentially greater than from the proposed project. Conclusion The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts because the helistop facility would not be developed and helistop lighting would not be installed. However, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in greater impacts related to hazards and similar or potentially greater impacts related to noise than the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable noise impacts would not be reduced under this alternative, and Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-15 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives additional or more intense impacts could result that would not occur from the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) only partially meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula because the helicopter does transport patients as necessary. However, because existing use of the EMS site has not completed full FAA and Caltrans Aeronautical review and approval, and has varied flight patterns due to wind conditions and pilot discretion, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, noise impacts, hazards impacts, and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. 4.6 No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted, and that the proposed storage building would not be developed and that the City-approved helistop site would be developed. The City-approved helistop would include a 60-foot by 60-foot helistop that would be located near the northeast corner of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line (shown in Figure 2-4, City-Approved Helistop Site). The helistop in this location would be developed on a 5.5-foot-high berm to meet airspace obstruction clearance criteria for vehicles on the adjacent driveways. This alternative would include the original City-approved flight path that would travel both to and from the helistop over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction (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 helistop over the Los Ranchitos single-family residential areas north of the project site. These flight paths are shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. 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 City-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 an southeast-bound direction. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-16 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 5 Site 9 Site 7 Site 8 Site 6B Site 6C Site 6A Approved Helistop Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Porto l a R d De Porto l a R d ANWP (Arrival N o r t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) DSEP (Depar t u r e S o u t h e a s t Point-t r a c k ) Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-2 City Approved Helistop – East-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Site Locations Site 8 Approved Helistop Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Porto l a R d De Porto l a R d DNWP (Depart u r e N o r t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) ASEP (Arrival S o u t h e a s t Point-t r a c k ) Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 5 Site 9 Site 6B Site 6C Site 7Site 6A Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-3 City Approved Helistop – West-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Site Locations 4. Project Alternatives The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative may also install obstruction lights on the top of the two-story Madera Vista apartment buildings as required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The ability to install the off-site lighting on the roof of the apartment buildings is not under the control of the applicant or the City, but these lights would be requested to be installed by the owner of the apartment buildings—which would not be required for the proposed project. If the owner of the apartment buildings refused to install the lights, the applicant would be required to rotate the southeastern flight path clockwise as required by Caltrans Aeronautics, resulting in frequent crosswind conditions for pilots during approaches and departures. Environmental Analysis Aesthetics Like the interim helistop site for the proposed project, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations. The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would direct the installation and use red obstruction lights on the adjacent apartment buildings that would be photocell-controlled for dusk-to-dawn operation. As described above, the installation the off-site lighting on the roof of the apartment buildings is not under the control of the applicant or the City, but these lights would be requested to be installed by the owner of the apartment buildings. These lights would not be required for the proposed project. Other new 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. Should the lighting on the roof of the apartment buildings be installed by the owner of the apartment buildings, the 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 could 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. In addition, implementation of the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would require (per FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics) reducing the height of the large row of mature trees that are in a drainage located adjacent to the east of the project site, which would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies to trim. Should these trees be reduced, removed, or cut as a result of the helistop project, aesthetic impacts that are greater than the proposed project (that would not result in tree trimming) would occur. Overall, this alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project’s less-than-significant aesthetic impacts. Hazards The helistop site that would be developed under the No Project/City-Approved Helistop 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-19 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives have on the safety of persons or property on the ground and objects that extend into the airspace. 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. As a result, the No Project/City- Approved Helistop Alternative has been conditioned to include a second flight path to meet FAA safety recommendations related to prevailing wind conditions. In addition, because the new residential uses are within the current City-approved flight path, Caltrans Aeronautics Division requires Temecula Valley Hospital to either rotate the single proposed flight path clockwise (approximately 36 degrees) to clear the Madera Vista multi-family residences to the east, resulting in a near crosswind condition for pilots on approach or departure, or arrange for red obstruction lights to be installed on the residential buildings. Also, as described previously, approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies are required, but have not been obtained, to trim the trees in the drainage adjacent to the hospital to meet obstruction height requirements. In addition, the installation the off-site lighting on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings is not under the control of the applicant or the City; thus, implementation of these safety features cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in potentially greater hazards impacts than the proposed project. Noise Construction Noise As described in Section 3.3, Noise, 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 RDSEIR-2016 and incorporated by reference). Under the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative, the proposed helistop locations and storage building would not be constructed; however, construction noise associated with the City- approved helistop 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/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would be similar to those currently occurring and proposed to occur by the proposed project. CNEL Standards The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would be developed one a 5.5-foot-high berm at the City-approved helistop location, and would result in the same CNEL contours as the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, which uses the existing ground surface at the same location. Thus, as shown in Figure 4-1, the 65 and 60 dB CNEL contours from the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative are contained within the project site. Because the 60 dB CNEL contours from use of the City-approved helistop site are completely contained on the hospital campus, a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula General Plan, Title 21, and the Riverside County ALUCP would not occur. Similarly, the 65 and Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-20 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives 60 dB CNEL contours generated by the proposed project (both interim and permanent helistops) would be contained within the project site. As a result, CNEL-related noise impacts under the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels As described previously, both the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative and the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would use the same helistop location. The single location would result in the same CNEL noise for both alternatives. As shown in Table 4-1, Sites 1 and 2 would not experience a CNEL increase of 3 dB, nor would Sites 3 or 5 experience a CNEL increase of 1.5 dB from operation of the City-approved helistop. Overall, the greatest increase in noise would be 0.3 dB CNEL at Site 2, which is below the 1.5 dB CNEL threshold. Furthermore, this alternative would not cause an exceedance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria, which sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium-intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing. As a result, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and impacts would be less than significant, which is the same as what would occur from the proposed project. Short-Term Noise As with the proposed project, the duration of the maximum single-event noise generated by the No Project/ City-Approved Helistop Alternative is very limited in length and frequency, occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights). However, as shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would include flight paths directly over residential uses that are adjacent to two sides of the hospital property and the planned equestrian trail. Table 4-3 shows the single-event noise at receptor sites (shown in Figure 4-2) that would be generated by the No Project/City-Approved Alternative. Level of Noise Impact: As described above, an impact related to short-term single-event noise would occur if helicopter operations results in exceedance of the City’s allowable exterior noise levels. The short-term noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the City-approved helistop has the greatest impact at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments, where it results in a maximum noise level of 94.0 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights) and 96.0 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions, which would be a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise. In comparison, helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop location would be greatest in Santa Ana wind conditions during use of the interim helistop location that could expose receptors to noise levels of up to 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Because the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level of 96.0 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments, it is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax less than what would occur from operation of the proposed interim helistop. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-21 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-3 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS – NO PROJECT/CITY-APPROVED HELISTOP ALTERNATIVE Site No. Site Location WEST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) EAST FLOW (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB 1 30390 De Portola 64.4 48.4 48.5 66.4 2 30955 De Portola 85.7 75.5 74.1 84.9 3 31775 De Portola 74.4 76.4 74.6 75.9 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 60.5 62.5 60.5 61.8 6A Equestrian Trail 79.6 77.1 75.7 80.5 6B Equestrian Trail Overflight 93.6 75.0 75.0 93.6 6C Equestrian Trail 70.4 65.3 64.2 71.8 7 Madera Vista 77.2 94.0 96.0 77.1 8 43941 Via Montalban 55.1 57.4 55.1 55.9 9 David Ln / Kevin Pl 55.9 51.8 51.1 58.5 NOTE: Receptors receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. However, for a majority of helicopter operations (prevailing winds at the interim and permanent helistops), the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative results in a maximum single-event noise levels that is greater than would be generated by the proposed project (94.0 Lmax dB for No Project/City-Approved Alternative compared to 93.4 and 89.8 Lmax dB for interim and permanent helistops). Moreover, the maximum noise level at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments, and at Site 6B, an Equestrian Trail Overflight Location, would be substantially greater than would be generated under both the interim and permanent helistop locations. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4-3 also shows that the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in helicopter overflight noise that would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 6 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and 7 of the 10 receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. In comparison, the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. In addition, the proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, compared to the proposed project, the helicopter overflight noise from the No Project/City- Approved Helistop Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at fewer receptor locations in both prevailing and Santa Ana conditions. Additionally, receptor Sites 5, 8 and 9, which Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-22 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives are located furthest away from the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative northwest/southeast flight path, would generally experience lower maximum short-term noise levels than from the proposed project. Although, receptor sites 6B and 7, which are located closest to the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative northwest/southeast flight path, would experience greater maximum short-term noise levels than the proposed project. Also, the second flight path that was provided as a condition in the FAA’s airspace determination letter that would be implemented under this alternative would fly over the Los Ranchitos single- family residential areas north of the hospital site, which would directly expose the area to helicopter noise that would be greater than under the proposed project. As shown in Table 4-3, in prevailing wind conditions Site 2 would experience a maximum noise of 85.7 dB Lmax and Site 6B, the equestrian trail location adjacent to the Los Ranchitos area, would be 93.6 dB Lmax. In Santa Ana wind conditions Site 2 would experience a maximum noise of 84.9 dB Lmax and Site 6B would be 93.6 dB Lmax. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Similar to the proposed project, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to noise because the noise from helicopter overflight under this alternative would be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels and would occur approximately eight times a month (four arrival flights and four departure flights). The No Project/City Approved Helistop Alternative would generate 0.6 dB Lmax greater noise in prevailing wind conditions and 4.8 dB Lmax less noise in Santa Ana wind conditions as compared to the proposed interim helistop. This alternative would also generate 4.2 dB Lmax greater noise in prevailing wind conditions, and 8.2 dB Lmax less noise in Santa Ana wind conditions in comparison to the proposed permanent helistop. Therefore, for a majority of helicopter operations, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater single-event noise than the proposed project. However, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would exceed the exterior short- term noise standard at fewer receptor locations than both the proposed interim and permanent helistops under both prevailing and Santa Ana conditions. Overall, because the helicopter overflight noise would result in greater single event noise than the proposed project for a majority of helicopter operations, but exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at fewer receptor locations under prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions than the proposed interim and permanent locations, and the 96.0 dB Lmax noise generated from helicopter operation under this alternative would result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax less than the maximum single-event noise that would occur under the proposed project (100.8 dB Lmax), the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in similar or slightly reduced single-event noise impacts compared to the proposed project. However, like the proposed project, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact related to noise because the noise from the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would be substantially louder than both the City’s Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-23 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels and would directly impact residential areas by helicopter overflight. Conclusion The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics and hazards, and similar or slightly reduced noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not meet the objectives of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, hazards impacts, aesthetics (lighting), and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. 4.7 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 as shown in Figure 4-4. This alternative would include an east-west flight path that would cross the front of the hospital site as it runs parallel to (and 144 feet north of) Temecula Parkway. It would also travel over existing commercial and institutional uses (i.e., the Rancho Community Church and Christian Schools). Figure 4-5 depicts the northeast-flow flight corridors and Figure 4-6 depicts the southwest-flow flight corridors for the alternative interim 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. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). 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 of wind direction, helicopters would generally approach the project site from the east, flying westbound Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-24 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Equestrian Trail PROJECT SITEPROJECT SITE P i o P i c o R d P i o P i c o R d V i l l a D e l S u r D r V i l l a D e l S u r D r 79 Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y C o u n t r y G l e n W y C o u n t r y G l e n W y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d De P o r t o l a R d De P o r t o l a R d Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-4 Alternative Interim Helistop Site SOURCE: Heliplanners 0 200 Feet 4. Project Alternatives This page left intentionally blank Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-26 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 9 Site 6B Site 6C Site 7 Site 6A Site 5 Site 8 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-5 Alternative Interim Helistop – North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Site Locations Alternative Helistop Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Porto l a R d De Porto l a R d PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 DNEP (Departu r e N o r t h e a s t Point-tra c k ) ASWP (Arrival S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) DSWP Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 9 Site 6B Site 6C Site 7 Site 6A Site 5 Site 8 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 4-6Alternative Interim Helistop – South-Flow Flight Corridorsfor Prevailing Wind Conditions SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Site Locations Alternative Helistop Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Portola R d De Portola R d PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 ANEP (Arrival N o r t h e a s t Point-trac k ) DSWP (Departur e S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) 4. Project Alternatives 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 in Figures 4-5 and 4-6. It should be noted that this alternative interim 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. 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 4-4) due to their proximity to the alternative interim 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 on hospital property adjacent to the existing light poles to ensure adequate obstruction lighting for this flight path. One of the existing power poles is located directly south of the site and would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of this proposed flight path, 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 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 lighting pole structures along the roadway. Like the proposed site, the alternative interim helistop site would be surrounded by an approximate 5-foot-tall security fence. However, unlike the proposed project, the helistop 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 from 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-29 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives Therefore, because this alternative would result in a more visible helistop surrounded by security fencing, and additional lighting and potentially lighting poles, this alternative has greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts. Hazards The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located 114 feet north of Temecula Parkway, which is lined with aboveground power poles and transmission lines on the same side of the street as the proposed project. The flight path required for this site (because of the prevailing winds at the project site) is an east-west flight path that would run parallel to Temecula Parkway. One existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the interim alternative site’s flight path and the planned MOB 2 would penetrate the northern transitional surface. The alternative interim site’s 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. If SCE does not install obstruction lights on its existing poles, the site would require additional poles equipped with obstruction lights to be erected on hospital property between the SCE poles and the helistop. This introduces new, closer airspace obstructions. Further, it is the policy of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to only grant variances for one side of a flight path. Therefore, Caltrans Aeronautics would not grant a variance for power lines that would penetrate the southern transitional surface and a second variance for MOB 2 that would penetrate the northern transitional surface. 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 hazards impacts related to the alternative interim helistop site are greater than that of the proposed interim helistop site. As shown in Figure 4-5, the flight path of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative in prevailing winds, not only travels parallel to Temecula Parkway, a major arterial and state highway, but also across the frontage of the existing hospital and flights would land on the helistop on the ground. Hence, the helicopters would reduce altitude (or increase altitude) as they cross the frontage of the operating hospital site and land on the helistop that is 114 feet away from Temecula Parkway. This helicopter activity would be adjacent to pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle travelers on the roadway and would be large-scale forefront activity; and increased risk of driver and bicyclist distraction along Temecula Parkway during helicopter operations, could increase traffic accident potential, or could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and take-offs 114 feet away from Temecula Parkway could impact pedestrian safety along the sidewalk that front the hospital and bicyclist safety on Temecula Parkway due to rotorwash (winds generated from the helicopter). In comparison, the flight path of the proposed interim helistop (shown in Figure 2-4) would travel from behind the existing and planned hospital facilities, and would cross (not travel along) Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-30 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives 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, including medical office buildings, 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 interim 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 takeoffs would be not be adjacent to Temecula Parkway and would be buffered by hospital facilities, safety concerns related to pedestrians along the sidewalk that front the hospital and bicyclists on Temecula Parkway would not occur, as it could by the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. Overall, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative results in greater potentially significant impacts related to hazards than the less-than-significant impacts that would occur from the proposed interim helistop site. 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 the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative as described above. CNEL Standards Figure 4-7 shows the CNEL noise contours that would result from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. As shown, the 65 dB CNEL contour would remain within the project site; the 60 dB CNEL contour crosses the mid-line of Temecula Parkway. In comparison, the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours from the proposed interim helistop site (shown in Figure 3.3-7) would remain within the project site. Hence, 60 dB CNEL contours from both the proposed interim and the alternative interim sites would remain within the hospital site. The City of Temecula General Plan criteria set noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium-intensity 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 and 65 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 General Plan, Title 21, and the Riverside County ALUCP would Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-31 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-7 Alternative Interim Helistop Location – CNEL Contours SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 Feet 79 Alternative Helistop PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Temecul a P k w y Temecul a P k w y De Porto l a R d De Porto l a R d 4. Project Alternatives 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 single-family residential neighborhood across (south of) Temecula Parkway where existing ambient noise levels are 78.7 dB CNEL. As shown on Table 4-4, the alternative site would increase noise at Site 2 by 0.1 dB CNEL 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 dB CNEL at Site 2 and 0.1 dB CNEL increase at Site 3 (Table 3.3-9). TABLE 4-4 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL NOISE AND HELICOPTER NOISE FROM 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 of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 78.7 53.4 78.7 0.0 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 CNEL threshold for locations with existing ambient noise levels between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, and below the 1.5 dB CNEL threshold for locations with existing ambient noise levels of more than 60 dB CNEL. Furthermore, this alternative would not cause an exceedance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria, which sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium-intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing. As a result, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels; impacts would be less than significant, which is the same as what would occur by the proposed project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-33 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives Short-Term Noise Table 4-5 shows the single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the alternative interim helistop site. As described above, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would utilize an east-west flight path that would cross the front of the hospital site as it runs parallel to (and 144 feet north of) Temecula Parkway. 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). TABLE 4-5 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITE ALTERNATIVE Site No. Site Location WEST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) EAST FLOW (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB 1 30390 De Portola 68.1 51.1 51.1 73.3 2 30955 De Portola 67.9 68.6 67.9 69.2 3 31775 De Portola 58.5 70.1 69.1 58.9 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 79.6 80.9 79.6 79.7 6A Equestrian Trail 70.8 72.1 70.8 71.9 6B Equestrian Trail 63.9 65.5 63.9 64.8 6C Equestrian Trail 73.6 73.3 73.4 79.7 7 Madera Vista 62.7 78.3 78.2 63.7 8 43941 Via Montalban 49.0 60.2 57.9 48.9 9 David Ln / Kevin Pl 76.4 58.5 57.7 77.5 NOTE: Receptors receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Level of Noise Impact: As described above, an impact related to short-term single-event noise would occur if helicopter operations results in an exceedance of the City’s allowable exterior noise levels. As shown in Table 4-5, the short-term noise generated by helicopter flights to and from alternative interim helistop would have the greatest impact at Site 5, the Country Glen neighborhood, where it would result in a maximum noise level of 80.9 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights) and 79.7 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions, which would be a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise. In comparison, the maximum helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop would be 93.4 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Thus, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level that is 12.5 dB Lmax less in prevailing winds and 21.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana winds than the proposed interim helistop. Therefore, the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-34 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in single-event noise levels that would be less than the proposed project. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4-5 also shows that helicopter overflight noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing winds and at 8 of the 10 receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. In comparison, the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, compared to the proposed project, the helicopter overflight noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 2 fewer receptor locations in Santa Ana wind conditions. Receptor Sites 2, 3, 6A, 6B, and 8, which are located furthest away from the alternative interim helistop east/west flight path, would generally experience lower maximum short-term noise levels by the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative than from the proposed interim helistop. Conversely, Sites 1 and 5, which are in close proximity to the alternative’s east/west flight path, would generally experience greater maximum short-term noise levels under this alternative during prevailing and Santa Ana winds than as compared to the proposed interim helistop location. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: The maximum noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be 12.5 dB Lmax less noise than what would occur by the proposed interim helistop in prevailing wind conditions, and 21.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana wind conditions. In addition, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at fewer receptor locations than the proposed interim helistop in Santa Ana conditions. Therefore, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced single-event noise impacts compared to the proposed project. However, like the proposed interim helistop, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact because helicopter noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels and would directly impact residential areas. Thus, noise impacts from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be less than the proposed project; however, impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Conclusion The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics and hazards. The alternative's aesthetics impacts are greater than the proposed project’s due to a more visible helistop surrounded by security fencing, lighting, and potentially lighting poles. The hazards impacts under this alternative would be greater and potentially significant due to the flight path that would run parallel and adjacent to Temecula Parkway. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-35 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives Noise impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison with the proposed project. However, noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be substantially louder than the City’s allowable noise levels and the existing ambient noise in the project area, and would occur approximately eight times a month. Thus, noise related to the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be less than the proposed project; however, impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Because impacts under this alternative related to aesthetics are greater and hazards are greater and potentially would result in a new significant impact, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. The helistop in this location is less accessible and less operationally efficient because of the location away from hospital, which would increase patient transport distance and time to and from the emergency department. Furthermore, implementation of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site would need to undergo the full review and permitting processes with the FAA, Riverside County ALUC, and Caltrans Aeronautics that would further delay the introduction of a fully permitted helistop. As such, it would not fully satisfy the objective of providing a regional hospital facility that would be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Furthermore, this alterative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. 4.8 Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop a helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location, which is shown in Figure 2-4. Development of the future hospital tower will occur in Phase IV of the hospital project. To allow for construction of the future hospital tower, the helistop would need to be relocated to the proposed interim helistop site. After completion of the future hospital tower, the permanent helistop (on the roof of the new tower) would be operational and the location that would be used during construction of the new tower would be removed. As shown in Figure 2-4, the future hospital tower location is in front of the existing hospital building, toward Temecula Parkway. Under this alternative the northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop would be used while the helistop is located at ground level at the future tower site. The flight paths are shown in Figures 2-4, 3.3-5, and 3.3-6. Because helicopters would be arriving and departing from the ground level, flights would travel at a lower altitude over the existing Madera Vista apartment buildings and over the existing hospital parking lot than would occur by use of the permanent helistop at this location, which would be on the roof of the future tower. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-36 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives When the helistop is moved to the proposed interim helistop location (upon construction of the future tower) the flight paths identified for the proposed interim helistop (shown in Figures 2-4, 3.3-3, and 3.3-4) would be used. The helistop location that would occur under this alternative would be required to be consistent with the applicable criteria of the aeronautical agencies (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA), and would have the same design, lighting, and security features as the proposed interim helistop described in Chapter 2, Project Description. In addition, for the helistop at the future tower location, red obstruction lighting would also be required on the southeast corner of the lower hospital structure, on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings, and potentially on light standards in the hospital parking lot that is adjacent to Temecula Parkway. Aesthetics The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would install lighting fixtures for nighttime operations that would be similar to those installed for the proposed interim site. In addition, this alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights on the southeast corner of the lower hospital structure, on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings, and potentially on light standards in the hospital parking lot that is adjacent to Temecula Parkway. With the additional red obstruction lighting that would be required for the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative that would be visible from Temecula Parkway; this alternative would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. Like the proposed interim helistop site, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would surround the helistop with a 5-foot-tall security fence. However, unlike the proposed project, the future tower helistop location is in front of the existing hospital building and visible from Temecula Parkway. This helistop would not be screened behind other planned hospital facilities and parking areas, and as a result, the helistop site and the security fence would be much more visible from travelers along Temecula Parkway under the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative. The lower flight path that would result from the ground level helistop at the future tower location would have obstruction clearance conflicts with the existing trees in the drainage that is adjacent to the hospital site. Based on Caltrans Aeronautics criteria, the large row of mature trees would need to be reduced in height to meet obstruction clearance standards. However, as described previously, trimming or removal of the trees within the drainage would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies; but should these trees be reduced, removed, or cut as a result of the helistop, aesthetic impacts would be greater than the proposed interim helistop (that would not require tree trimming). As described above, under the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative, prior to commencement of construction of the future tower, the helistop would be moved to the proposed interim helistop location. Therefore, in addition to the impacts that would occur from the ground level helistop at the future tower location, this alternative would also result in the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-37 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives same less-than-significant aesthetic impacts that would occur under the interim condition of the proposed project. 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. Because the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in more red obstruction lighting and a more visible helistop that would be located in front of the existing hospital building and visible from Temecula Parkway that would be surrounded by security fencing, this alternative would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts. Hazards The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop a helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location, which would be moved during construction of the future tower. The same northeast/southwest flight paths for the permanent helistop would be used while the helistop is located at ground level at the future tower site (shown in Figure 2-4). However, because helicopters would be arriving and departing from the ground level, flights from this ground helistop location would travel at a low-altitude over the existing Madera Vista apartment buildings and over the existing hospital parking lot. This flight path would have obstruction clearance conflicts with the existing trees in the drainage that is adjacent to the hospital site. Based on Caltrans Aeronautics criteria, the large row of mature trees would need to be reduced in height to meet obstruction clearance standards. However, as described previously, approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies are required to trim these trees, which have not been obtained. As a result, hazard impacts related to the tree obstructions would be greater than the proposed interim helistop that would not require tree trimming. The planned MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings (shown in Figure 2-4) may also penetrate the northern transitional surface of the flight path for the ground level helistop at the future tower site, which generates a potential hazard impact. In addition, depending on the timing of development of the “future building site” located on the south east corner of the project site, the future building in this location could penetrate the southern transitional surface, generating an additional potential hazard impact. It is the policy of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to only grant one variance per flight path. Penetrations of the transitional surface in more than one area would not be allowed by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and would not receive a permit to operate the helistop. Furthermore, the obstruction conflicts with the trees and future on-site buildings that would occur from the ground level helistop at the future tower site would not occur from the proposed interim helistop. The proposed interim helistop would not require a variance from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. Thus, potential hazards impacts related to obstruction clearance conflicts from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be greater than what would occur by the proposed project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-38 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives As shown in Figure 4-5, one of the flight paths from the future tower location would cross the hospital entrance driveway, a hospital parking lot, and Temecula Parkway. Hence, the helicopters would reduce altitude (or increase altitude) as they cross Temecula Parkway, the parking lot, and the main hospital access road to land or take off from the helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. This helicopter activity would be a low-altitude event that would cross over pedestrians, bicycles and vehicle travelers in the hospital driveway, parking lot, and Temecula Parkway. This would be a large-scale forefront activity that could cause distractions to drivers in the driveway, parking lot, and along the roadway and lead to vehicle accidents, or could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and takeoffs crossing Temecula Parkway at a low altitude could impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the sidewalk that fronts hospital due to rotorwash (winds generated from the helicopter). In comparison, the flight path of the proposed interim helistop (shown in Figure 2-4) would travel from behind the existing and planned hospital facilities, and would cross Temecula Parkway at a location farther away from the hospital that would provide the distance, height, and trajectory to be far above the roadway to not cause the distraction that could be caused by the ground level future tower helistop location. The location of the proposed interim helistop, where the helistop would move during construction of the future tower, 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 ground level future tower helistop location. In addition, the flight path for the proposed interim location would not travel above or cross vehicular paths in the hospital parking lot, driveway, or along Temecula Parkway (such as would be done by the ground level future tower helistop location), and would not result in the level of potential confusion for persons to access the hospital that could occur from the ground level future tower helistop location. Also, because helicopter landings and takeoffs would be farther from roadways, driveways, and sidewalks, safety concerns related to pedestrians and bicyclists along the public sidewalk that fronts the hospital would not occur, as it could by the ground level future tower helistop location. Overall, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater potential impacts related to hazards than would occur by the interim helistop site proposed by the project. Noise Construction Noise Construction of the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in construction of two interim helistops. Thus, noise from helistop construction would be greater under this alternative than would occur by the proposed project. However, construction noise associated with the phased development of the other hospital facilities would continue to occur Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-39 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives during the construction of the helistops. 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 Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be similar to those currently occurring and proposed to occur by the proposed project. CNEL Standards The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location for use prior to construction of the new tower. Therefore, the CNEL noise contours that would be generated by this alternative would be similar to what would occur by the proposed permanent helistop and would be contained within the hospital site, as shown on Figure 4-8. Therefore, the average noise increase (CNEL) resulting from the helistop at the future tower location would be less than significant, which is the same as the proposed project. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels The Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. As shown on Table 4-6, the alternative site would increase noise at Site 2 by 0.1 dB CNEL and the remainder of the sites would not experience an increase in CNEL noise. In comparison, the proposed project would result in an increase in ambient noise by 0.2 dB CNEL at Site 2 and 0.1 dB CNEL increase at Site 3 (Table 3.3-9). The differences in CNEL noise generated from the proposed interim site and the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative are very minimal and below the 3 dB CNEL threshold for locations with existing ambient noise levels between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, and below the 1.5 dB CNEL threshold for locations with existing ambient noise levels of more than 60 dB CNEL. Furthermore, this alternative would not cause an exceedance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria, which sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium-intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing. As a result, the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels; impacts would be less than significant, which is the same as what would occur by the proposed project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-40 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Temecula P a r k w a y Future Tower Ground Level De Porto l a R d M a r g a r i t a R d 79 Legend CNEL Contours 60 dB Noise SensitiveLand Use 65 dB Hospital Campus 0 500 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-8SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2015; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA, 2012 NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non-aircraft sources.CNEL Contours for the Future TowerLocation as Interim Helistop Alternative 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-6 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL NOISE AND HELICOPTER NOISE FROM THE FUTURE TOWER LOCATION INTERIM HELISTOP SITE ALTERNATIVE 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 23.7 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 58.9 41.5 59.0 +0.1 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 63.5 42.5 63.5 0.0 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 78.7 40.6 78.7 0.0 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, 2015. Short-Term Noise The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop a helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. The same northeast/southwest flight paths for the permanent helistop would be used while the interim helistop is located at ground level at the future tower site (shown in Figure 2-4). Table 4-7 shows the single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the ground level future tower location interim helistop. Level of Noise Impact: As described above, an impact related to short-term single-event noise would occur if helicopter operations results in an exceedance of the City’s allowable exterior noise levels. As shown on Table 4-7, the noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the ground level interim helistop at the future tower location would result in a maximum noise level of 94.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 93.7 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions, both of which would occur at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments, which would be a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise. In comparison, the maximum helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop location would be 93.4 dB Lmax, in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana conditions, both at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a short-term maximum noise level at receptors of 1.4 dB Lmax greater in prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights), and 7.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana conditions than the proposed interim helistop. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-42 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-7 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS – FUTURE TOWER LOCATION AS INTERIM HELISTOP ALTERNATIVE Site No. Site Location WEST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) EAST FLOW (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB 1 30390 De Portola 58.6 48.3 48.3 63.3 2 30955 De Portola 68.9 68.8 68.9 72.5 3 31775 De Portola 67.2 83.8 83.8 67.8 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 86.5 64.6 64.7 87.3 6A Equestrian Trail Overflight 72.3 72.3 72.3 76.3 6B Equestrian Trail 67.1 67.5 67.1 68.8 6C Equestrian Trail 71.5 64.1 64.2 76.2 7 Madera Vista 77.1 94.8 93.7 78.4 8 43941 Via Montalban 52.2 74.4 72.5 52.3 9 David Ln / Kevin Pl 71.8 51.9 51.9 79.7 NOTE: Receptors receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4-7 also shows that the helicopter overflight noise from the ground level helistop at the future tower location would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. In comparison, the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, compared to the proposed project, the helicopter overflight noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at one less receptor location in Santa Ana conditions. Receptor Sites 1, 2, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 9, which are located furthest away from the Alternative Interim Helistop flight path, would generally experience lower maximum short-term noise levels than by the proposed interim helistop location. Conversely, however, Sites 3, 5 and 7, which are directly under or in close proximity to the alternative’s northeast/southwest flight path would generally experience greater maximum short-term noise levels by the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative in both prevailing and Santa Ana winds, compared to the proposed interim helistop location. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum short-term noise level at receptors of 1.4 dB Lmax greater in Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-43 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights) than the proposed interim site. However, this alternative would generate a maximum noise of 7.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana conditions than the proposed interim helistop. In addition, this alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard one less receptor location than the proposed interim helistop in Santa Ana conditions. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a slightly greater maximum single-event noise for a majority of flights; however, it would impact one fewer receptor location than the proposed interim helistop in Santa Ana conditions. Similar to the proposed interim helistop, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact because helicopter noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels, occur approximately eight times a month, and would directly impact residential areas by helicopter overflight. Thus, noise impacts from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be similar to the project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Conclusion The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and hazards; and similar noise impacts. As with the proposed interim location, noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be substantially louder than existing ambient noise levels and would occur approximately eight times a month. Thus, noise related to the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be similar to the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, because the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and hazards impacts and would not reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level, it is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regards to meeting the project objectives, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would require two interim helistop sites, each with new operating plans that could be disruptive to operations of hospital, especially the transfer of emergency patients. This would result in interfering with the project objective to provide superior, easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner. Finally, a ground-level site at the future tower location would be required to undergo the full review and permitting processes with FAA, Riverside County ALUC, and Caltrans Aeronautics, which would further delay the introduction of a permitted helistop facility. As such, it would not fully satisfy the objective of providing a regional hospital facility that is an operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-44 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives 4.9 Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would develop the helistop on the roof of the existing five-story hospital building. As shown in Figure 2-4, the existing five-story hospital building is in the central portion of the project site, behind the future tower location. Under this alternative the approximate northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop would be used by the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building. The flight paths are shown in Figures 2-4, 3.3-5, and 3.3-6. Like the existing hospital building the future tower would be five-stories high; thus, helicopters would be arriving and departing from this location at the same altitude as the proposed permanent helistop. This alternative would include development of the storage building, as proposed. The helistop located on the roof of the existing hospital building would have the same design, lighting, and security features as the permanent helistop described in Chapter 2, Project Description. No additional obstruction or lead-in lighting would be required under the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative. However, implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). Because the additional mass from the helistop and helicopter would be substantial relative to the existing roof mass, seismic upgrades would be required pursuant to the California Building Code (CBC). In particular, the existing hospital building was designed and constructed in compliance with 2007 CBC requirements. Building modifications under this alternative would be required to comply with either the current 2013 CBC or the CBC that is in place when building permits are issued. The 2013 CBC is more stringent in terms of seismic requirements than the 2007 CBC. The 2013 CBC requires the following improvements to support a helistop on the roof of the existing hospital: • Gravity Support Modifications: (1) Existing roof beams of the hospital structure would be required to be strengthened by adding cover plates or tees welded to the underside of the beams; (2) Connections of the affected beams would need to be strengthened by supplemental fillet welding; and (3) Approximately eight existing structural building columns would be need to be strengthened from the ground up to the roof with cover plates. This structural work, involving walls, floors, and ceilings from the ground floor up to the ceiling, would impact the following areas/systems within the hospital building for the duration of construction: a. First Floor: parts of kitchen, main housekeeping, pharmacy, and the only service corridor b. Second Floor: two intensive care unit rooms, patient mentoring room, respiratory services work room, and main corridor c. Third Floor: five patient rooms and corridor d. Fourth Floor: five patient rooms and corridor e. Two patient elevators would need to be modified to go to the roof Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-45 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives • Pile Foundation Modifications: The existing pile foundations of the hospital structure would be needed to be strengthened with additional piles. As with the gravity support work, this structural work would impact the first-floor kitchen, main housekeeping, pharmacy, and the only service corridor during construction. • Framing Modifications: The existing moment frames and braced frames would need to be strengthened as a result of the increase in seismic loading. Likewise, the pile foundation supporting the existing seismic bracing system would need to be strengthened with additional piles. This structural work would impact medical surgery patient rooms throughout the tower and the first-floor emergency department, pharmacy, and kitchen areas. • In addition to the CBC-required improvements, a fuel/water separator would need to be installed on the rooftop, and the fire suppression system of the hospital would be required to undergo substantial upgrades, and the existing rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system may need to be replaced. Insufficient separation between the HVAC intakes and helicopter engine exhaust could create harmful air quality conditions within the hospital. Should insufficient separation exist, the hospital would need to modify or replace the HVAC units with advanced carbon filtration and ionization systems. This would require an increase in air handler fan size to increase static air pressure. Construction of these improvements could take approximately 16 months, depending on the strategy chosen for facility operations, during which time the affected areas would be significantly disrupted and/or unusable. Areas outside of the hospital, which are nearby or underneath construction equipment (such as cranes), would also be unusable, which would affect hospital operations. Aesthetics Like the permanent helistop proposed by the project, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations that would include 16 green flush-mounted perimeter lights surrounding the TLOF in accordance with Caltrans Division of Aeronautics standards. However, due to its location five-stories above ground, no additional obstruction lighting or lead-in lighting would be required under the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. The proposed interim helistop site would be required to install lead-in lights that would not be required for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts related to the amount of required lighting than the proposed interim helistop. In addition, the proposed interim helistop would be located in the western portion of the hospital site toward the professional office and commercial uses to the west. Pursuant to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics requirements, the proposed interim helistop would consist of a 5.5-foot-high berm from which helicopters would land and take off and would be lighted for nighttime operations. The proposed interim helistop would be visible from adjacent roadways and off-site uses. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-46 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives The rooftop nighttime lighting for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be consistent with what would be used for the permanent helistop, which 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 rooftop to avoid casting shadows onto adjacent properties. Like the permanent helistop location, some of the rooftop lighting from the helistop on top of the existing hospital building 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. Therefore, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in fewer aesthetic impacts than the less-than-significant impacts that would occur from the proposed project. Consistent with the other alternatives described previously, 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. Hazards The helistop site that would be developed under the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be located on top of the five-story existing hospital building and would use the northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop, which meet safety recommendations related to prevailing wind conditions. Because of the height and location of the building in the central portion of the project site, a helistop on top of the existing hospital building would meet the FAA’s Heliport Design Guide standards and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria for obstructions and lighting. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not result in any potential obstruction clearance conflicts, and no variances would be required. As a result, no additional obstruction or lead-in lighting would be required by the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. Because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would meet FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics safety standards, and no variances or additional safety lighting would be required, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in similar less-than-significant impacts related to hazards as the proposed project. Noise Construction Noise Construction of this alternative would result in construction activity on top, within, and directly adjacent to the operating hospital, which is a sensitive receptor. As described previously, to implement the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative, the hospital building would need infrastructure upgrades, including: extending the elevator to provide a rooftop elevator stop, installation of equipment and machinery on the roof that would be lifted by crane above operating portions of the hospital building, and implementing substantial upgrades to the building’s fire suppression and structural systems. The construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would result in direct noise impacts to the hospital (sensitive receiver), which would not occur by the proposed project. Therefore, construction noise impacts by the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be greater than those currently occurring and proposed to occur by the proposed hospital development project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-47 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives CNEL Standards The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would develop a helistop on the roof of the existing five-story hospital building, which is located in the central portion of the project site, behind the future tower location. Like the existing hospital building, the future tower would be five-stories high. Thus, helicopters would be arriving and departing from this location at the same altitude as the proposed permanent helistop, and would generate similar CNEL contours. As shown in Figure 3.3-8, the 60 dB CNEL contours resulting from the helicopter flights to the permanent helistop are completely contained on the hospital site. Because the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital is located behind and more centrally located than the future tower location, CNEL contours from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would also be contained within the hospital site, as shown on Figure 4-9. Furthermore, this alternative would not cause an exceedance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria, which sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium-intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing. As a result, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels; impacts would be less than significant, which is the same as what would occur by the proposed project. Short-Term Noise As discussed, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would use the approximate northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop. The single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive at and depart from the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building would be similar to what would occur with the proposed permanent helistop location that would be on the roof of the future five-story tower. As with the proposed project, the duration of the maximum single-event noise would be limited in length and frequency, occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights). Table 4-8 shows the single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-48 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Temecula P a r k w a y Existing Tower Rooftop Helistop De Porto l a R d M a r g a r i t a R d 79 Legend CNEL Contours 60 dB Noise SensitiveLand Use 65 dB Hospital Campus 0 500 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-9 CNEL Contours for the ExistingHospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2015; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA, 2012 NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non-aircraft sources. 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-8 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE EXISTING HOSPITAL ROOF HELISTOP SITE ALTERNATIVE Site No. Site Location WEST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) EAST FLOW (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB Helicopter Departure Lmax, dB Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dB 1 30390 De Portola 48.3 49.6 49.7 63.7 2 30955 De Portola 78.3 78.2 78.3 79.2 3 31775 De Portola 70.2 81.7 81.6 70.2 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 81.5 68.6 67.7 84.0 6A Equestrian Trail 82.8 82.8 82.8 83.7 6B Equestrian Trail 75.3 75.3 75.3 76.3 6C Equestrian Trail 71.9 70.8 70.8 76.3 7 Madera Vista 76.1 88.6 87.2 76.1 8 43941 Via Montalban 53.7 73.6 71.5 53.7 9 David Ln / Kevin Pl 70.1 55.3 55.0 78.3 NOTE: Receptors receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Level of Noise Impact: As described above, an impact related to short-term single-event noise would occur if helicopter operations results in an exceedance of the City’s allowable exterior noise levels. As shown, helistop operations in this location would have the greatest impact at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments, resulting in a maximum noise level of 88.6 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions, and 87.2 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions. In addition, this alternative would result in 84.0 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 5, Country Glen neighborhood; and result in 82.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail, in prevailing wind conditions and 83.7 dB Lmax Santa Ana wind conditions, which would be a substantial short- term increase in ambient noise. In comparison, helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop would result in a maximum of 93.4 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level of 88.6 dB Lmax, dB in prevailing wind conditions, and 87.2 dB Lmax, dB in Santa Ana wind conditions, it is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax, dB less in prevailing wind conditions, and 13.6 dB Lmax, dB less in Santa Ana wind conditions than would occur from operation of the proposed interim helistop. In addition, the noise generated by helicopter flights from the proposed permanent helistop would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 87.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions, at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. This noise would be Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-50 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives 1.2 dB Lmax lower than what would occur by the proposed permanent helistop in prevailing wind conditions, and would be 0.6 dB Lmax lower than what would occur by the proposed permanent helistop in Santa Ana wind conditions. Therefore, helicopter operations using the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum single-event noise levels that would be slightly less than with the proposed project. However, as described in Section 3.3, Noise, a change in noise that is less than 3 dB is not perceivable (heard) by humans. Therefore, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in a slightly less maximum noise level; however, the difference would not be noticeable. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4-8 also shows that the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in helicopter overflight noise that would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Receptor Site 1, which is located furthest away from the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative northeast/southwest flight path, would generally experience lower maximum short-term noise levels than under the proposed project. Conversely, however, Sites 7 and 3, which are directly under or near the alternative’s flight path, would generally experience greater maximum short-term noise levels under this alternative during prevailing and Santa Ana winds than as compared to the proposed interim and permanent helistop locations. In comparison, the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. The proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, compared to the proposed project, the helicopter overflight noise from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at one less receptor location in Santa Ana conditions than the interim helistop, but would exceed the standard at the same number of locations as the proposed permanent helistop in both wind conditions. Therefore, impacts to receptor sites by the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be slightly less than the proposed project. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Similar to the proposed project, the noise from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels, and would occur approximately eight times a month. Therefore, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax less in prevailing wind conditions, and 13.6 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana wind conditions than what would occur from operation of the proposed interim helistop. However, this alternative would generate very similar noise levels as the proposed permanent helistop because helicopters would be arriving and departing from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative at the same altitude as the proposed permanent helistop. Further, the exterior short-term noise standard would be exceeded at one less sensitive receptor location in Santa Ana conditions then the interim helistop. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-51 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives Thus, noise impacts from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be less than the project's significant and unavoidable impacts. However, similar to the proposed interim and permanent helistop, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact because helicopter noise would be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels, occur approximately eight times a month, and would directly impact residential areas by helicopter overflight. Conclusion The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and hazards. In regard to construction noise impacts, because the hospital is a sensitive receptor, construction noise would be greater under this alternative than the proposed project. Operational helicopter noise would be less from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative than the proposed interim helistop, but would be very similar to impacts that would be generated from the proposed permanent helistop. However, helicopter-generated noise would continue to be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise levels and the existing ambient noise levels and would occur approximately eight times a month. Thus, noise related to operation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics impacts, similar hazard impacts, greater construction noise impacts, and reduced operational noise (particularly, at the interim helistop) impacts, it is the environmentally superior alternative. In regard to meeting the project objectives, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital including: extending the elevator to add a rooftop stop, installing equipment by crane over operating hospital areas to the rooftop, and implementing substantial upgrades to the fire suppression and structural systems of the building. The construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would hinder use of the existing hospital facilities because of the noise, vibration, and potential hazards related to rooftop construction. During construction of this alternative, portions of the existing hospital would be unusable, such as the rooms on the top floor and areas nearby or underneath construction equipment, such as cranes, and would result in operational impacts to the hospital, which would not occur from the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be disruptive to operations of hospital, which would result in interference with the project objective of providing superior, easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner. Finally, a helistop on the existing hospital roof would be required to undergo the full review and permitting processes with FAA, Riverside County ALUC, and Caltrans Aeronautics, which would further delay the introduction of a permitted helistop facility. As such, it would not fully satisfy the objective of providing a regional hospital facility that is an operationally efficient, Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-52 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. However, this alternative would meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. 4.10 Environmentally Superior Alternative As described, each of the identified alternatives would reduce the maximum noise level at the receptor sites that would be generated by the proposed project, which would be 93.4 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions for the interim helistop site, and 89.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 87.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions for the proposed permanent helistop. However, noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under all of the alternatives because each of the alternatives would result in noise that would substantially exceed the City’s allowable noise limit and the existing ambient noise in the project vicinity. Table 4-9 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 analysis in this RDSEIR-2016, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As shown in Table 4-9 and described previously, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics impacts, similar hazard impacts, and less helicopter noise (particularly, at the interim helistop) impacts. As a result, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. In addition, this alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital, including: extending the elevator to add a rooftop stop, installing equipment by crane over operating hospital areas to the rooftop, and implementing substantial upgrades to the fire suppression and structural systems of the building. The construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would result in operational impacts to the hospital, which would not occur from the proposed project, and would hinder achievement of the project objectives. The disruption to operations of the hospital that would occur by implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would interfere with the project objective of providing superior, easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner, and the delay caused by the full review and permitting processes with FAA, Riverside County ALUC, and Caltrans Aeronautics of the existing building roof site, would interfere with the objective of providing a regional hospital facility that is an operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-53 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-9 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impact Category Proposed Project No Project/ Existing Condition No Project/City- Approved Project Alternative Interim Site Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Aesthetics Less than Significant Fewer Greater Greater Greater Fewer Hazards Less than Significant Greater Greater Greater, Potentially Significant Greater Similar Noise Significant and Unavoidable Similar or greater, Significant and Unavoidable Similar or fewer, but Significant and Unavoidable Fewer, but Significant and Unavoidable Similar. Significant and Unavoidable Greater construction and fewer operations, but Significant and Unavoidable Meets the project objectives Yes Yes, but not to the same extent as the proposed project in regards to hazards and compatibility with adjacent development Yes, but not to the same extent as the proposed project in regards to access routes and hazards Would not fully meet project objectives related to hospital operations and compatibility of development related to aesthetics and hazards Would not fully meet project objectives related to hospital operations and compatibility of development related to aesthetics and hazards Yes, but not to the same extent as the proposed project, as it would be disruptive to existing hospital operations Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-54 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 CHAPTER 5 References Air Combat Command. 2001. Initial F-22 Operational Wing Beddown Draft Environmental Impact Report. Volumes 1 through 3. April 2001. Accessed at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/enviro/F22DraftEis/ on June 5, 2014. ANSI. (2008). Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound - Part 6 Methods for Estimation of Awakenings Associated with Outdoor Noise Events Heard in Homes (ANSI S12.9-2000/Part 6). American National Standards Institute. Blazer, Don. 2012. Can You Hear Me Now? Horses and Hearing. Accessed at http://www.donblazer.com/ahorseofcourse/02_12_ears.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/aeronaut/helipads/documents/ heliport_ems_info.pdf on January 10, 2014. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998. Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. Accessed at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/ in 2014 and 2015. City of Temecula. 2005. City of Temecula Citywide Design Guidelines. August 9, 2005. Accessed at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Planning/ zoningdocuments/citywidedesign.htm on December 31, 2013. City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan. Accessed at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Planning/zoningdocume nts/generalplan.htm on December 31, 2013. City of Temecula. City of Temecula Municipal Code. Accessed at http://www.qcode.us/ codes/temecula/view.php?topic=17&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-070806-041.pdf on June 4, 2014. Department of the Navy, 2005. Guidelines for Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operations. April 2005. Accessed at: http://fican.org/aviation-noise-issues/ in 2015. 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. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) 1997. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep. Accessed at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235203930_Federal_Interagency_Committee_on_ Aviation_Noise_1997_Annual_Report in 2015. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 5-1 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 5. References Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) 2008. Recommendation for use of ANSI Standard to Predict Awakenings from Aircraft Noise. Accessed at: http://www.fican.org/pdf/Final_Sleep_Dec2008.pdf Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2003. State of California 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 Land 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 I:A-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 Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 5-2 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 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 Escario, Project Manager Sean Burlingame, Noise Analyst Kelly Ross, Project Analyst Paige Anderson, Project Analyst Jason Nielsen, GIS Linda Uehara, Graphic Artist Temecula Valley Hospital Helipad Project 6-1 ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 APPENDIX A FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ and Riverside County ALUC Correspondence Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project ESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 U.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration July 3, 2013 Mr. Jeffery Wright Heliplanners Western-Pacific Region Los Angeles Airports District Office 31110 Avenida Del Reposa Temecula, California 92591-1718 Temecula Valley Hospital Temecula, California Airspace Case No. 2013-AWP-745-NRA P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009 Lat. 33-28-48.80 N, Long. 117-06-28.80 w (NAD 83) Dear Mr. Wright: 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#l 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 regµrds to obtaining a state heliport permit. Your point of contact ia: 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. Sincerely, l..·\rt~L.-~,L, J-:~<--1'~·· .. ,_ . Margie DrilLlng . 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 U.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration March 15, 2012 Mr. Jeffery Wright Heliplanners Western-Pacific Region Los Angeles Airports District Office 31110 Avenida Del Reposa Temecula, CA 92591 Temecula Medical Center, Temecula, CA Establishment of Heliport Airspace Case No. 2011-AWP-1209-NRA P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009 Lat. 33-28-55.40 N, Long. 117-06-19.90 W (NAO 83) Dear Mr. Wright: 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 heliport in Temecula, California for the Temecula Medical Center. 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 landing area. d. An additional ingress/egress route of 105/285 degrees should be added for safety. e. Trees located at 045 to 055 degrees from helipad should be removed or topped to mitigate current and future ingress/egress obstacles. f. 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 "Special-Use" heliport permit. Your point of contact is: Mr. Jeff R. Brown Aviation Safety Officer California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, MS40 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 916-654-4565 cc: California Department of Transportation Mr. Jeff Brown Division of Aeronautics, MS 40 Aviation Safety Officer P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Jeff Wright From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Categories: Jeff, Phillip Miller <phillip_miller@dot.ca.gov> Thursday, December 29, 2011 11 :34 AM Jeff Wright Jeff Brown Re: UHST-1 Temecula Valley Hospital --Revised HLP Business Printed 6/13/2013 1:25 PM1:25 PM To recap our conversation this morning we understand that only one approach I 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 I 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