Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout050416 PC Agenda · · · · · AERIAL MAP PLAN REDUCTIONS STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: PA15-1185 and PA15-1187 Applicant: Peter Kruse Proposal: A Development Plan and a Conditional Use Permit for Home2 Suites by Hilton to allow for the construction and operation of a four-story 66,552 square foot hotel in the Business Park (BP) zone. The hotel consists of 120 rooms with lounge areas, a dining room and breakfast bar, a coffee bar, an exercise room, guest laundry, and a business center. Outdoor amenities include a pool, a dining area, fire pit, and a barbecue area. The site is located between Rancho California Road and Single Oak Drive, approximately 450 feet east of Business Park Drive. Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities) Case Planner: James Atkins, (951) 240-4206 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Supplemental Material www.cityoftemecula.org. Any distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. In www.cityoftemecula.org and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please contact the Community Development Department, (951) 694-6400. · · · · · · · PLAN REDUCTIONS PC RESOLUTION MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13-0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07- 0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-026) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 7 Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06- TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, -080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571) L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as -080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as -080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF 59-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. HH. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. II. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-06, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Project (PA13-0141) and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. JJ. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-05, recommending approval of the Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Project (13- 0141). KK. On July 27, 2015, prior to the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing scheduled for the project, staff received a letter from legal counsel representing the Los analysis, project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project. At the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing the City Council continued the application off calendar to provide time to revise the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to address the comment letter through a Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. LL. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, reconsidered the Application and the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on May 4, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. MM. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing. The recommendation to the City Council as set forth in this resolution, and finding contained herein, reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and are deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and related actions. NN. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending that the City Council approve the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.030.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a development planand by Section 17.04.010.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a Conditional Use Permit: Development Code Findings (Section 17.05.030.E): A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Modification to a Development Plan is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City of Temecula. As designed and conditioned the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare; The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 17.04.010.E): A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed Conditional Use Permit modification is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encou protected and co-exist with newer urban de (Goal 8). In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; l Use Permit are consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sou 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, s on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 21662.4.(a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The Modification to the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the Modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the Modification to the use permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the proposed Modification to a Conditional Use Permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental finding and determinations in connection with the recommendation for approval of Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the y. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and Incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. H. The Planning Commission reviewed the SEIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the April 15, 2015 public hearing and based on the whole record before it found that: (1) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there was substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to helicopter noise; and (3) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflected the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. I. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the Recirculated SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from February 8, 2016 to March 23, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. J. Five written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. K. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Recirculated SEIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the May 4, 2016 public hearing and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the Recirculated SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to helicopter noise; and (3) the Recirculated SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflected the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. L. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, the Addendum for the modification application, the second SFEIR, the Recirculated SFEIR and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. M. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Number 959-080-026, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA13-0141, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of May, 2016. Ron Guerriero, Chairman ATTEST: Luke Watson, Secretary \[SEAL\] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. ____ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Luke Watson, Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CC RESOLUTION CC RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13-0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING FOR NON- HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. -0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway arcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Envi C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06- TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, -080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571) L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. s decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as -080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as -080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF CEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. HH. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. II. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission heard, was presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing. JJ. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- 05 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and adopted Resolution No. 15-06 recommending that the City Council certify a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for noise impacts, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. KK. On July 27, 2015, prior to the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing scheduled for the project, staff received a letter from legal counsel representing the Los analysis, project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project. At the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing the City Council continued the application off calendar to provide time to revise the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to address the comment letter through a Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. LL. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, reconsidered the Application and the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on May 4, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. MM. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA13-0141 and adopt a Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for noise impacts, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. NN. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on May 24, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. OO. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the City Council adopted Resolution No. ______ subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. PP. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings: Development Code Findings (Section 17.05.030.E): A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Modification to a Development Plan is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula. As designed and conditioned the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare; The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 17.04.010.E): A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed Conditional Use Permit modification is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the co protected and co- compatible and coord (Goal 8). In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal 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, on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 21662.4.(a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The modification to the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the modification to the use permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to conditionally approve the proposed modification application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the City Council. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula Valley Hospital (the (: A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the e Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents were available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and Incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. H. The Planning Commission reviewed the SEIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the April 15, 2015 public hearing and based on the whole record before it found that: (1) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there was substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to helicopter noise; and (3) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. I. On July 27, 2015, prior to the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing scheduled for the project, staff received a letter from legal counsel representing the Los analysis, project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project. At the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing the City Council continued the application off calendar to provide time to revise the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to address the comment letter through a Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. J. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the Recirculated SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from February 8, 2016 to March 23, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. K. Five written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. L. The Planning Commission reviewed the Recirculated SEIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the May 4, 2016 public hearing and based on the whole record before it found that: (1) the Recirculated SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to helicopter noise; and (3) the Recirculated SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflected the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. M. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, the Addendum for the modification application, the second SFEIR, the Recirculated SFEIR and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. N. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred. Section 4. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Number 959-080-026, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA13-0141, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24th day of May, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk \[SEAL\] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk EXHIBIT B DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA13-0141 Planning Application No.: UHS Helistop Major Modification: A Major Modification to a Development Project Description: Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road at 31700 Temecula Parkway. 959-080-026 Assessor's Parcel No.: Commercial MSHCP Category: Service Commercial/Office DIF Category: Service Commercial/Office TUMF Category: NA (Non-Residential Project) Quimby Category: May 25, 2016 Approval Date: May 24, 2018 Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with De Minimus Finding as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Compliance with Previous Approvals. Except where modified by this approval, all Conditions of Approval for Planning Application Nos. PA10-0194 (Major Modification), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit) remain in effect and shall be complied with. 3. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 4. Expiration. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 5. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 6. City Plan Review Prior to OSHPD Submittal. Prior to submittal of plans for bed tower 2 and/or the rooftop helistop to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, the applicant shall submit the plans to the City of Temecula Community Development Department for review and shall complete a Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission review of the permanent helistop prior to its approval by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. 7. Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. (enter EIR # here). 8. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 9. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 11. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles on site. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 12. Paint Inspection. The applicant shall paint a three-foot-by-three-foot section of the building for Planning Division inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. 13. Photographic Prints.. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved color and materials board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the color and materials board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 14. Materials and Colors. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. Materials & Colors: a. Storage building main body color -- Dryvit #456, "oyster Shell" in "Sandblast" texture to match existing hospital building b. Storage building base -- Indian Red to match existing hospital building c. Storage building aluminum shadow box windows -- Medium bronze to match existing hospital building d. Storage building tinted glass -- Bronze tint to match existing hospital building e. Storage building stucco cornice -- Indian Red to match existing hospital building trim 15. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project 16. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. 17. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. 18. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover. 19. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 20. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 21. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in-lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. 22. Construction and Demolition Debris solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City and construction debris. 23. Public Art Ordinance Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 24. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 25. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 26. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community 27. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 28. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." 29. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 30. MSHCP Pre-Construction Survey. A 30-day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30-day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre-grading meeting with Public Works. 31. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30-day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 32. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 33. Downspouts. All downspouts shall be internalized. 34. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee. 35. Photometric Plan. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot, to the Planning Division, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Riverside County Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely affect the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 36. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 37. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one- the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 38. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first 39. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 40. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 41. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one- shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 42. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property. 43. Hardscaping. The landscape plans shall include all hardscaping for equestrian trails and pedestrian trails within private common areas. 44. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 45. WQMP Treatment Devices. All WQMP treatment devices, including design details, shall be shown on the construction landscape plans. If revisions are made to the WQMP design that result in any changes to the conceptual landscape plans after entitlement, the revisions will be shown on the construction landscape plans, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 46. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 47. Letter of Substantial Conformance. The applicant shall submit a letter of substantial conformance, subject to field verification by the Director of Community Development or his/her designee. Said letter of substantial conformance shall be prepared by the project designer and shall indicate that all plant materials and irrigation system components have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape and irrigation plans. Such letter of substantial conformance shall be submitted prior to scheduling for the final inspection. 48. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 49. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 50. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking areas and striping shall be installed. 51. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Outside Agencies 52. Compliance with RCALUC Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the conditions provided in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission letter dated March 4, 2014. 53. RCALUC Review of Permanent Helistop. The applicant shall complete a Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission review of the permanent helistop prior to its approval by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and prior to its installation. Furthermore, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission's conditions on the permanent helistop shall be incorporated into any subsequent permits that the City may issue to implement the actions of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 54. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. 55. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 56. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for onsite improvements (outside of public right-of-way) shall be obtained from Public Works 57. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained from Public Works for public offsite improvements; Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 58. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 59. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction-phase pollution-prevention controls to adequately address non-permitted runoff. Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/engineeringconstmanual.ht m 60. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 61. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml 62. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a revision to the original WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) that was approved with the original grading permit. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the updated project-specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, the updated WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be revised accordingly and submitted for review and approval. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/WQMPandNPDES/WQMP. htm 63. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted 64. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 65. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer-of-record certifying -of-record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 66. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all onsite work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement 67. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 68. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771 69. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 70. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as trash enclosures. 71. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 72. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi-family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 73. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 74. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 75. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 76. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. 77. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 78. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance 9.20.060, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. At Plan Review Submittal 79. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2013 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 80. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 81. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 82. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction 83. Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 84. Fire Requirement. Guard posts will need to be constructed of steel not less than 4-inches in diameter and concrete filled. They need to be set not less than 3-feet deep in a concrete footing of not less than a 15-inch diameter. Top of posts shall not be less than 3-feet above ground (CFC Chapter 3) Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 87. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). For the new proposed storage building the developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5) 88. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). The new proposed storage building will be required to be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. For the new proposed storage building fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. 89. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). The new proposed storage building will be required to be equipped with a fire alarm system. For the new proposed storage building fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. PC RESOLUTION RECIRCULATED SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PC RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE RECIRCULATED SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-026) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 7 Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06- TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, -080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571) L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as -080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as -080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF -080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application (PA13-0141) and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. HH. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-06, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Project (PA13-0141) and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. II. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-05, recommending approval of the Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Project (13- 0141). JJ. On July 27, 2015, prior to the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing scheduled for the project, staff received a letter from legal counsel representing the Los analysis, project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project. At the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing the City Council continued the application off calendar to provide time to revise the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to address the comment letter through a Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. KK. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, reconsidered the Application and the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on May 4, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. LL. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing. The recommendation to the City Council as set forth in this resolution, and finding contained herein, reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and are deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and related actions. MM. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental finding and determinations in connection with the recommendation for approval of Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the y. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. H. The Planning Commission reviewed the SEIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the April 15, 2015 public hearing and based on the whole record before it found that: (1) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there was substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to helicopter noise; and (3) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflected the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. I. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the Recirculated SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from February 8, 2016 to March 23, 2016. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. J. Five written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. K. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Recirculated SEIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the May 4, 2016 public hearing and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the Recirculated SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to helicopter noise; and (3) the Recirculated SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflected the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. L. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, the Addendum for the modification application, the second SFEIR, the Recirculated SFEIR, and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning n is based, is the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Section 3. Recommendation to City Council. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the Project as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by the reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED Section 4 by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of May, 2016. Ron Guerriero, Chairman ATTEST: Luke Watson, Secretary \[SEAL\] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 16-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Luke Watson, Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CC RESOLUTION CC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE RECIRCULATED SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-026) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 7 Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06- TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, -080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571) L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of tal project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as -080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as -080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF -080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. HH. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission heard, was presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing. II. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- 05 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and adopted Resolution No. 15-06 recommending that the City Council certify a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for noise impacts, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. JJ. On July 27, 2015, prior to the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing scheduled for the project, staff received a letter from legal counsel representing the Los analysis, project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project. At the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing the City Council continued the application off calendar to provide time to revise the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to address the comment letter through a Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. KK. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, reconsidered the Application and the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on May 4, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. LL. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA13-0141 and adopt a Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for noise impacts, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. MM. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. NN. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. OO. Environmental impacts identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. PP. Environmental impacts identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR that are found to be less than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit A to this Resolution. QQ. Environmental impacts identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR as potentially significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to this Resolution. RR. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. SS. A discussion of the project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. TT. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. UU. On May 24, 2016, the City Council considered the Final Recirculated SEIR for the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. VV. Prior to taking action the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, as well as oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or re-circulation of the Recirculated SEIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously disclosed environmental impacts identified. WW. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the written and oral comments on the Draft Recirculated SEIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final Recirculated SEIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues. B. Determine that the Final Recirculated SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. C. Certify that the Final Recirculated SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. D. Declare that the Final Recirculated SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Recirculated SEIR, the responses to comments on the SEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Recirculated SEIR under CEQA. Section 3. Certification of the Final SEIR. The City Council hereby certifies the Final SEIR, adopts the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final Recirculated SEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit A, by itself, would justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. Section 4. Conditions of Approval. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Development Plan (PA13-0141) each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. Section 5. Custodian of Records.The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 24th day of May, 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randy Johl-Olson, City Clerk \[SEAL\] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution No. ____ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk EXHIBIT B FINDINGS IN FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the “Guidelines”) provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A.Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. B.Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C.Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (the “project”), as more fully described in the Final Recirculated Supplemental EIR (SEIR). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft SEIR, comments on the Recirculated Draft SEIR, the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City’s environmental consultants. II. Project Objectives. As originally established in the 2006 EIR, and set forth in the Draft SEIR and Recirculated Draft SEIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this project (the “Project Objectives”) are as follows: Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s employment base; Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Њ In addition, objectives that the Applicant seeks to achieve with this project are as follows: Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in November 2013, to determine potential significant effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agricultural and Forest Resources; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (E) Cultural Resources; (F) Geology and Soils; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality; (H) Land Use and Planning; (I) Mineral Resources; (J) Population and Housing; (K) Public Services; (L) Recreation; (M) Transportation and Traffic; and (N) Utilities and Service Systems. In addition, aesthetic issues regarding scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and visual character were determined not to be significant. The project would not result in significant impacts related to routine transport of hazardous materials, hazardous emissions, location of a hazardous materials site, public airports, emergency response plans, or wildland fire hazards. The project would also not result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise, or noise impacts related to a public airport. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the SEIR: (A) Aesthetics (light and glare); (B) Hazards and Hazardous Materials (safety in vicinity to private airstrip); and (C) Noise. A.On December 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the project. The NOP requested comments within 30 days of the notice. On December 11, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 15082(c)(1) of the Guidelines, the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR. No comments were received on areas other than those already found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the SEIR The Recirculated SEIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Recirculated SEIR. Ћ A.Aesthetics Potential Impact: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.” No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The total number of anticipated helistop operations is, on average, approximately eight times per month, which can occur at anytime of the day or night. Helicopter landing lights during the approach to the interim helistop will be directed forward toward the helistop touchdown and liftoff (TLOF) lighting that identifies the location of the helistop. During use of the permanent helistop, the landing light will be focused on the top of the hospital tower. The helicopter’s landing lights would focus forward at an angle toward the helistop, not downward upon non-hospital uses, and would not spillover onto adjacent uses. The height of the permanent helistop location would further reduce lighting on non-hospital ground uses. The distance from the interim helistop site to the nearest residential property line is approximately 225 feet, and the distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest residential unit is approximately 305 feet. Because of the distance, and the focused lighting within the urban environment, the use of standard helicopter lights during periodic helicopter flights would not result in significant impacts. In addition, the lighting used to facilitate the safe transport of patients between the helistop locations and the hospital would be intermittent and would be activated after the helicopter has landed and turned off before its departure. The lighting would be directed to the specific areas where safe pass-through is needed and would be oriented to avoid off-site light spillover onto adjacent properties, consistent with City lighting standards. Lighting not regulated by the FAA or Caltrans Aeronautics will comply with City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655. For the interim helistop, spill-over would also be reduced through landscaping, shielding of light fixtures, and intermittent use. Lighting on the permanent helistop would be directed toward the interior of the roof top to avoid casting shadows on adjacent properties. Lighting would also be consistent with the existing hospital lighting and lighting from surrounding uses, not affecting viewers’ nighttime vision. The project would also not introduce substantial glare to the project area because the project would construct the interim and permanent helistops and storage buildings with typical building materials, which would not create substantial daytime glare. Any daytime glare from the helicopter would be intermittent, as the helicopter would only be temporarily parked on the helistop between patient loading and unloading approximately eight times per month. Because of the limited and temporary source of potential glare from implementation of the project, impacts related to glare are less than significant. Potential Impact: The project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to lighting and glare. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant Ќ effects on the environment,” and determines that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The project will have a limited contribution to existing nighttime lighting, and with compliance to City lighting requirements, would not result in significant impacts related to nighttime lighting and glare. As with the proposed project, the cumulative projects would be required to be consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655, which includes requirements to minimize illumination levels onto adjacent property lines, direct lighting down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels, and the use of low pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures. As a result, implementation of the lighting and glare generated from the City-compliant lighting at the already developed hospital site that would include the new interim and permanent helistop and storage building when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to lighting and glare. Cumulative impacts are less than significant. B.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potential Impact: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.” No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Proposed flight paths will route incoming flights from the east and departing flights would leave the helistop heading west, and have been designed to avoid the existing five-story building, trees, light poles, and utility lines. The proposed flight paths also consider the predominant wind direction and avoid low altitude flying over residential areas. The proposed storage building is 22 feet high (lower than the main hospital building), and located outside of the two proposed flight paths for the interim helistop, and would not interfere with incoming or departing flights. Implementation of these flight paths that are consistent with FAA and Caltrans design requirements, the airport land use plan, and operating under approvals from these agencies would reduce safety hazards to both persons in the helicopter and people residing or working in the project area. As a result, impacts related to substantial safety risks for people residing or working in the project area would be less than significant. Potential Impact: The project would not result in cumulatively considerable impact related to the safety of people residing or working in the project area. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment,” and determines that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Hazard related impacts typically occur in a local or site-specific context versus a cumulative context combined with other development projects, although it is possible for Ѝ combined effects of hazards to occur by adjacent cumulative development that involves hazardous risks. Several projects are in the vicinity of the project area; however, none would involve helicopter landing or other aviation-related uses. Furthermore, except for development of the hospital, none would involve building heights that would extend into the planned flight path, such that a hazardous event on the project site or related to the helicopter travel would result in cumulative impacts. A limited increase in air traffic in the project vicinity would be generated from the project, which would adhere to all safety regulations. The existing regulations related to the heliport design and flight path, and the required FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and ALUC review and approvals, reduce the potential for hazardous conditions and provide safety measures such that a cumulatively adverse condition would not occur from implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore and as noted above, the proposed project site is not within 2 miles of a private or public airport and would not result in any other changes in existing air patterns. Flight paths to and from the project site would be regulated by the FAA and must meet FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance standards. These design considerations and the limited number of helicopter flights that would occur by the proposed project would ensure that the project’s contribution to hazards impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the effect of the heliport project in combination with the cumulative development in the project vicinity would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to the safety of people residing or working in the project area. Hence, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. C.Noise Potential Impact: The project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.” No standard conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the project are completely contained on the hospital campus. Permanent average noise increase (CNEL) resulting from the proposed helistop project would not result in a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula General Plan. No residential areas would experience a significant permanent noise (CNEL) impact from the proposed helistop facilities as defined by Title 21 of the State Aeronautics Act. No residential areas or other sensitive uses would experience a significant permanent (CNEL) noise impact as defined by Section 5.1.2 of the Riverside County ALUCP. Further, operation of the proposed storage building would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level in the SEIR Potential Impact: The Recirculated SEIR identified the potential for the project to cause significant environmental impacts in the area of temporary construction noise. Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that “changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant Ў effects on the environment.” This impact is Less Than Significant after the implementation of project design features, standard conditions of approval, or mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction of the proposed helistop locations and storage building would use the same types of equipment that have been (and would continue to be) used to construct the hospital facilities. Development of the relocated interim helistop and new storage building would not increase temporary construction activity noise levels beyond those generated by construction of the other hospital facilities, which were previously analyzed in the approved 2008 Final SEIR. Other hospital facilities, such as the roadways, parking lots, and future building sites are located closer to sensitive receptors than the proposed storage building. Hence, the maximum noise from construction on the project was previously evaluated, and there would be no substantial increase in construction noise impacts as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Finally, the construction related mitigation measures from the previously approved 2008 Final SEIR and 2011 Addendum to the 2008 Final SEIR were incorporated by reference into the Recirculated SEIR, and would be implemented to mitigate construction related noise impacts to noise to a less than significant level. VI. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation As a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact. The City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that “Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” In the environmental areas of noise there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below. A.Noise Potential Impact: The project may expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Finding: The City makes the above finding in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3) and determines that this potentially significant impact is Significant and Unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding: The project would result in temporary and periodic exceedances of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.20.040) as helicopters arrive and depart the proposed helistops. The City’s Noise Ordinance states that noise cannot be generated that would result in the exterior sound level on single-family residential land uses to exceeding 65 dB Lmax, and 65-70 dB Lmax for multi-family residential. The duration of the maximum single-event noise listed in Table 3.3-9 of the Recirculated SEIR would be limited, occurring approximately eight times per month (four departure operations and four arrival operations) as the helicopter is approaching and departing the helistop. In prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital), the noise generated by helicopter flights to Џ and from the interim helistop would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites listed in Table 3.3-9, and would result in a maximum noise level of 93.4 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. In Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard at all of the receptor sites and result in a maximum noise level of 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Table 3.3-10 of the Recirculated SEIR shows the single-event noise levels (Lmax) that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the permanent helistop that would be located on the roof of the future hospital tower, which would be developed in Phase IV of the hospital development. As shown, in prevailing wind conditions, noise from helicopter operations to and from the permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. In Santa Ana wind conditions, the exterior short-term noise standard would also be exceeded at 9 of the 10 receptor sites and result in a maximum noise level of 87.8 dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. Although medical helicopter noise is exempt from the City’s Municipal Code standards (per Code Section 9.20.030), and flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances and cannot be restricted due to noise (per California’s Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a)), noise from medical helicopters would substantially exceed the City’s maximum exterior sound levels for single- and multi- family residential uses (as identified Tables 3.3-9 and 3.3-10 of the Recirculated Draft SEIR). As a result, implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the exceedance of noise standards. Potential Impact: The project may cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels. Finding: The City makes the above finding in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3) and determines that this potentially significant impact is Significant and Unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to the allowable noise levels in the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.20.040), the project would result in substantial temporary and periodic increases in noise levels at sensitive receptors as helicopters arrive and depart the proposed helistops. Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to California’s PUC Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. However, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to reduce the helicopter noise related safety hazards at the equestrian trail and to require pilots to use and be trained on the approved flight paths, maintain a log of helicopter activity to ensure compliance with the flight paths, make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available, and establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. The mitigation measure below is required in order to reduce this impact to the extent practicable. However, it would not reduce the limited but substantial noise levels generated from helicopter overflight from both the interim and permanent helistops to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts related to exposure of persons to noise in excess of the allowable noise levels А regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance, substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels, and cumulatively considerable single-event noise impacts from helicopter overflights are significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure NOI-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. Potential Impact: The project would result in cumulatively considerable single-event noise impacts from helicopter operations due to the level of the single-event noise that would result from helicopter overflight and because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. Finding: The City makes the above finding in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3) and determines that this potentially significant impact is Significant and Unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding: None of the cumulative projects listed that are near the project site would involve helistop locations or any other aviation-related uses. Nearby cumulative projects involve commercial, office, and residential development that would not result in substantial noise generation. Furthermore, there are no proposed uses that would generate noise, such that it would combine with noise from helicopter flights to result in a significant cumulative impact. The closest cumulative projects are adjacent to the project site and consist of a medical office building, a surgery center, and a professional Б office building. These uses are complementary and consistent with the hospital uses, and would not generate noise that would combine with the helicopter noise from the project. However, although the above mitigation measure would reduce the project’s helicopter noise related safety hazard to the equestrian trail and would require pilots to use and be trained on the approved flight paths, maintain a log of helicopter activity to ensure compliance with the flight paths, make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available, and establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues, limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flights due to noise. The City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. Therefore, it is anticipated that off-site sensitive receptors would experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels that would be above the allowable noise levels of the City’s Zoning Ordinance during helicopter operations. Impacts related to substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels in excess of the Noise Ordinance standard from helicopter overflights would be significant and unavoidable. Given the significance of the single-event noise impacts, and in an effort to provide a conservative approach as mandated by CEQA, noise impacts from helicopter operations are deemed to be cumulatively considerable. VII. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated in the SEIR CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). According to the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The “range of alternatives” is governed by the “rule of reason,” which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered. Among the factors that can be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR is failure to meet most of the basic Project Objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)) CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) further states that among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The following alternatives were initially considered but were eliminated from further consideration in the Recirculated SEIR because they do not meet the majority of the project objectives, do not avoid or substantially lessen the project’s significant impacts, and/or were otherwise determined to be infeasible. В Medical Office Building Sites . As more particularly described in the Recirculated SEIR, Phase II of the construction of the hospital campus, which is to occur next, includes development of Medical Office Building (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 MOB 1 site is visible from the existing hospital parking lot and from Temecula Parkway, which would make security fencing and lighting more visible in the MOB 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. Upon completion of Phase II, MOB 2 and a 300 space parking facility would be developed adjacent to the MOB 1 site, rendering the MOB 2 site unavailable for use after Phase II. The MOB 2 site also has additional constraints making it an infeasible alternative. Specifically, the flight path required would result in low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway and obstruction clearance constraints with the MOB 1 building. Additionally, power lines along the northern side of Temecula Parkway would require red obstruction lights and additional red obstruction light poles would need to be installed on hospital property, creating additional aesthetic and hazard impacts. Furthermore, a helistop at the MOB 2 location would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur by the proposed project. Due to the volume of helicopter noise, there is no onsite location that would reduce the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations to less than significant levels. Thus, the use of the MOB 2 location for use as the interim helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Sites as Interim Helistop Site Alternative. As more particularly described in the Recirculated SEIR, the future building and infrastructure locations that are part of the approved hospital campus facilities are not available for the interim helistop location. In addition, none of these locations would avoid or substantially lessen the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations, and were eliminated from further consideration. Phase II requires installation of a water-quality infrastructure system at the southeast corner of the site that includes an infiltration storm chamber system to receive drainage from a majority of the site. The detention basin and storm chamber area cannot be located under a structure, and therefore the southeast corner of the site is unavailable for use either as buildings or the interim helistop facility. Additionally, the flight path for a helistop in the southeast 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. The southeast corner of the site would also be more visible and would not reduce ЊЉ significant noise impacts. Therefore, the use of this location was eliminated from further consideration. Use of the future building site that is located on the western portion of the project site for the helistop would result in a flight path that would have low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora Road, which are both adjacent to the western portion of the project site and could result in hazards due to drivers distracted by helicopter operations. Also, helicopter activity from this location would pose airspace obstruction-clearance conflicts with the power lines; and therefore would be required to include red obstruction lights or additional red obstruction lighted poles would need to be installed on the hospital property, adjacent to Temecula Parkway. This would result in hazards and aesthetics impacts. In addition, low-altitude helicopters would travel over residential areas, office uses and likely the equestrian trial, resulting in significant and unavoidable noise impacts. A helistop at the future building site in the western portion of the project site would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur by the proposed project, as all on-site helistop locations would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to noise. This site would be more visible than proposed interim helistop, which would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. Thus, the use of this location for the helistop was eliminated from further consideration. The future building site located in the eastern portion of the hospital site to the south of the City-approved helistop and to the east of the existing hospital building is closer to sensitive receptors than both the proposed interim and City-approved helistop sites. As a result, use of this site for the helistop could result in greater impacts to sensitive receptors than the proposed project and would not reduce the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur by the proposed project. In addition, this future building site would have obstruction clearance conflicts related to the trees in the adjacent drainage, which would penetrate the transitional surface of a flight path from this location and would result in greater hazards impacts than the proposed project. Thus, the use of the future building site in the eastern portion of the project site for the interim helistop would result in greater noise and hazards related impacts, and significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur from the proposed project would not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, developing a helistop in this portion of the project site was eliminated from further consideration. The future building site to the north of the City-approved helistop site and south of 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. Noise from helicopter operations from a helistop in this location would directly impact these sensitive uses to a greater degree than the proposed project; thus, it would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur from the proposed project. In addition, the interim helistop would be visible to travelers along De Portola Road, and impacts related to aesthetics would also occur. Thus, impacts to sensitive receptors from the helistop and helicopter operations to and from this location would be greater than the proposed project, and the use of this location for the helistop was eliminated from further consideration. B. Alternatives Considered in the SEIR The alternatives addressed in the Recirculated SEIR were identified in consideration of one or more of the following factors: 1.The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project; ЊЊ 2.The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed project; 3.The feasibility of the alternative; 4.The requirement of the CEQA Guidelines to consider a “no project” alternative; and to identify an “environmentally superior” alternative in addition to the no project alternative (Section 15126.6(e)). The Recirculated SEIR analyzed five project alternatives. These alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to substantially reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable noise impacts or meet the project’s objectives for the various reasons stated below. 1.Alternative One – No Project /Existing Condition Alternative Summary of Alternative: The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative assumes that the existing condition would continue and that the City-approved helistop would not be developed. In addition, none of the required implementation measures, such as installing obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings, realignment of the flight path, adding a second egress/ingress flight path, or trimming the trees within the drainage adjacent to the hospital that would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies, would be completed. The proposed storage building would also not be developed. Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative as Infeasible: The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts because the helistop facility would not be developed and helistop lighting would not be installed. However, this Alternative would result in greater impacts related to hazards, as the landing site does not meet the standards of the FAA’s Heliport Design Guide or the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria for a helistop, and pilots need to divert from the existing flight path depending on wind conditions. This alternative would also have similar or potentially greater impacts related to noise than the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable noise impacts would not be reduced under this alternative, and additional or more intense impacts could result that would not occur from the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula because the helicopter does transport patients as necessary. However, because existing use of the EMS site has not completed full FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics review and approval, and has varied flight patterns due to wind conditions and pilot discretion, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, noise impacts, hazards impacts, and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: Under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, the existing conditions will continue and the City-approved helistop would not be developed. Under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, impacts to aesthetics may be reduced, but hazard impacts would increase. This alternative ЊЋ would also have similar or potentially greater impacts to noise and would not reduce significant and unavoidable noise impacts. The Council finds the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Accordingly, the Council rejects the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative. 2.Alternative Two – No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative Summary of Alternative : The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted; that the proposed storage building would not be developed, and that the City-approved helistop would be developed. The City-approved helistop would include a 60-foot by 60-foot helistop that would be developed on a 5.5-foot-high berm located near the northeast corner of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. This alternative would include the City-approved flight path that would travel both to and from the helistop over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction, and a second flight path (as listed as a condition in the FAA’s airspace determination letter) that would travel both to and from the helistop over the Los Ranchitos single-family residential areas north of the project site. This Alternative would also involve the addition of obstruction lights on the top of the two-story Madera Vista apartment buildings, and removal or trimming of trees within the offsite riparian area that is adjacent to the project site as required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The ability to install the off-site lighting on the roof of the apartment buildings is not under the control of the applicant or the City, but these lights would be requested to be installed by the owner of the apartment buildings. If the owner of the apartment buildings refused to install the lights, the applicant would be required to rotate the southeastern flight path clockwise as required by Caltrans Aeronautics, resulting in frequent crosswind conditions for pilots during approaches and departures. Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative as Infeasible: This Alternative may require installation of red obstruction lights on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings, which is not in the control of the applicant or City, and if installed, would result in greater lighting impacts. In lieu of red obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings, because new residential uses are within the current City- approved flight path, Caltrans Aeronautics Division would require Temecula Valley Hospital to rotate the single proposed flight path clockwise (approximately 36 degrees) to clear the Madera Vista multi-family residences to the east, resulting in a near crosswind condition for pilots on approach or departure. Regarding noise, for a majority of helicopter operations (prevailing winds at the interim and permanent helistops), the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater single-event noise than the proposed project. However, this Alternative would exceed the exterior short term noise standard at fewer receptor locations than both the proposed interim and permanent helistops under both prevailing and Santa Ana conditions. 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 ЊЌ 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. Finding: Under the No Project/City Approved Helistop Alternative, there would be greater impacts related to aesthetics and hazards, and similar or slightly reduced noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable. The Council finds the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council therefore rejects the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative. 3.Alternative Three – Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative Summary of Alternative: The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed interim helistop at a different location on the project site, which would be at ground level in the southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site. This alternative would include an east-west flight path that would cross the front of the hospital site as it runs parallel to (and 144 feet north of) Temecula Parkway. It would also travel over existing commercial and institutional uses (i.e., the Rancho Community Church and Christian Schools). This helistop would include the same design, lighting, and security features as the interim helistop. However, red obstruction lights would be required on (or next to) several Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of their locations at night. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path design approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). This alternative would include development of the proposed one-story, 5,000 square foot storage building. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible : The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project due to a more visible helistop with security fencing, lighting, and potentially lighting poles. Specifically, this Alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights on several SCE power poles along Temecula Parkway. Should SCE not allow modification of these poles, new poles with red lighting would be required to be installed on hospital property adjacent to the existing light poles to ensure adequate obstruction lighting for this flight path. One of the existing power poles is located directly south of the site and would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of this proposed flight path, requiring this light pole be lighted at night with red obstruction lights. This alternative would result in additional nighttime lighting, and potentially additional lighting pole structures along the roadway. The hazards impacts by this alternative would be greater and potentially significant due to the flight path that would run parallel and adjacent to Temecula Parkway. 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. Accordingly, 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 did not install obstruction lights on its existing poles, the ЊЍ 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. Therefore, the planned MOB 2 building, along with the already developed underground utilities, would need to be relocated or reconfigured so that the MOB 2 building would not penetrate the transitional surface, and only one transitional surface would be penetrated. Overall, the penetration of a transitional surface and the need for variances on both sides of the flight path 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 Alternative are greater than that of the proposed interim helistop site. Further, the flight path of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative in prevailing winds not only travels parallel to Temecula Parkway, a major arterial and state highway, but also across the frontage of the existing hospital, and flights would land on the helistop on the ground. Hence, the helicopters would reduce altitude (or increase altitude) as they cross the frontage of the operating hospital site and land on the helistop that is 114 feet away from Temecula Parkway. This helicopter activity would be adjacent to pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle travelers on the roadway and would be large-scale forefront activity, and increased risk of driver and bicyclist distraction along Temecula Parkway during helicopter operations could increase traffic accident potential, or could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and take-offs 114 feet away from Temecula Parkway could impact pedestrian safety along the sidewalk that front the hospital and bicyclist safety on Temecula Parkway due to rotorwash (winds generated from the helicopter). Noise impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison with the proposed project, but would continue to be significant and unavoidable 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. This 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. 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 than from the proposed interim helistop. Conversely, Sites 1 and 5, which are in close proximity to the alternative’s east/west flight path, would generally experience greater maximum short-term noise levels under this alternative during prevailing and Santa Ana winds than as compared to the proposed interim helistop location. Therefore, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. 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 because the helistop location would be less accessible and less operationally efficient because of the location away from the hospital, increasing patient transport time to and from the emergency department. Furthermore, the full review and permitting processes required by this Alternative would further delay the introduction of a fully permitted helistop, and would not fully satisfy the objective of providing a regional hospital facility that would be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility ЊЎ 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. Therefore, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: Under the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative, there would be greater impacts related to aesthetics, greater and potentially significant impacts related to hazards, and reduced noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable. The Council finds the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council therefore rejects the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative. 4.Alternative Four – Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative Summary of Alternative: The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop and operate helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location until start of Phase IV of the hospital project, at which time the helistop would be relocated to the proposed interim helistop site. After completion of the future hospital tower, the permanent helistop (on the roof of the new tower) would be operational and the interim helistop site would be removed. This alternative includes northeast/southwest flight paths, and because helicopters would be arriving and departing from ground level, flights would travel at a lower altitude over the Madera Vista apartment buildings and over the existing hospital parking lot than would occur by use of the permanent helistop that would be on the roof of the future tower. The ground level helistop in this Alternative would include the same design, lighting, and security features as the interim helistop. In addition, red obstruction lighting would be required on the southeast 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. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path design approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible: This alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights on the southeast 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. Further, the planned MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings 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 southeast corner of the project site, the future building in this location could penetrate the southern transitional surface, generating an additional potential hazard impact. Due to the flight paths from the future tower location, helicopter activity would be a low-altitude event that would cross over pedestrians, bicycles and vehicle travelers in the hospital driveway, parking lot, and Temecula Parkway. This would ЊЏ be a large-scale forefront activity that could cause distractions to drivers in the driveway, parking lot, and along the roadway and lead to vehicle accidents, or could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and takeoffs crossing Temecula Parkway at a low altitude could impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the sidewalk that fronts hospital due to rotorwash. The noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum noise level of 94.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 93.7 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions. In comparison, the noise from the interim helistop location would be 93.4 dB Lmax, in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana conditions. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum noise level that is 1.4 dB Lmax greater in prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights), and 7.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana conditions than the proposed interim helistop. A comparison of Table 4-7 (single-event noise levels from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative) and Table 3.3-9 (single-event noise levels from the interim helistop) shows that Receptor Sites 1, 2, 6A, 6B, 6C (the three sites along the equestrian trail), and 9 would experience lower maximum noise levels from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative than by the proposed interim helistop location; however, Sites 3, 5 and 7 would experience greater maximum noise levels by the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative in both prevailing and Santa Ana winds, compared to the proposed interim helistop location. In addition, Sites 3, 5 and 7 are located adjacent to the densely populated Madera Vista Apartments and Country Glen Community and would impact more receivers than the Sites at the non-residential equestrian trail and lower density residential uses within the Los Ranchitos community. Moreover, 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 the same number of receptor locations during prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights) and at one less receptor location in Santa Ana conditions. The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidable impact because helicopter noise from the alternative would be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. Thus, noise impacts from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be similar to the interim location’s significant and unavoidable noise impact. Overall, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and hazards, and noise impacts would be similar to the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. 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. In addition, the full review and permitting processes required by this Alternative would further delay the introduction of a fully permitted helistop, and would not fully satisfy ЊА 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. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: Under the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative, there would be greater impacts related to aesthetics and hazards, and similar noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable. The Council finds the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council therefore rejects the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative. 5.Alternative Five – Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative Summary of Alternative: The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would develop the helistop on the roof of the existing five-story hospital building and would have northeast/southwest flight paths, similar to those identified for the permanent helistop. In addition, this Alternative would implement the same design, lighting, and security features as the permanent helistop, and no additional obstruction or lead-in lighting would be required. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would include development of the storage building. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require helistop and flight path design approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA); and seismic upgrades would be required pursuant to the California Building Code (CBC); including the following: Gravity Support Modifications: (1) Strengthen roof beams by welding cover plates or tees to the beams; (2) Strengthen beam connections by fillet welding; and (3) Strengthen the full length of approximately eight structural building columns with cover plates. This structural work would impact use of the following hospital areas during construction: a. First Floor: parts of kitchen, main housekeeping, pharmacy, and the only service corridor b. Second Floor: two intensive care unit rooms, patient mentoring room, respiratory services work room, and main corridor c. Third Floor: five patient rooms and corridor d. Fourth Floor: five patient rooms and corridor e. Two patient elevators would need to be modified to go to the roof Pile Foundation Modifications: Strengthen the pile foundations of the hospital structure by adding piles. This structural work would impact the use of the first-floor kitchen, main housekeeping, pharmacy, and the service corridor during construction. Framing Modifications: Strengthen the building moment frames and braced frames that support the seismic bracing system. This structural work would impact medical ЊБ surgery patient rooms throughout the tower, the emergency department, pharmacy, and kitchen areas. A fuel/water separator would need to be installed on the rooftop, the fire suppression system would need substantial upgrades, and the existing rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system may need to be replaced. Construction of these improvements could take approximately 16 months. Exterior construction areas or near construction equipment (such as cranes), would also be unusable, and would affect hospital operations. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible: The proposed interim helistop site would be required to install lead-in lights that would not be required for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts related to the amount of required lighting than the proposed interim helistop. Overall, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and similar impacts related to hazards. In regard to construction noise impacts, because the hospital is a sensitive receptor and construction would occur during its operations, construction noise would be greater under this alternative than the proposed project. Helicopter-generated noise would continue to be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise levels and the existing ambient noise levels. Thus, noise related to operation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics impacts, similar hazard impacts, greater construction noise impacts, and reduced operational noise impacts, it is the environmentally superior alternative. In regard to meeting the project objectives, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital including: extending the elevator to add a rooftop stop, installing equipment by crane over operating hospital areas to the rooftop, and implementing substantial upgrades to the fire suppression and structural systems of the building. The construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would hinder use of the existing hospital facilities because of the noise, vibration, and potential hazards related to rooftop construction. During construction of this alternative, portions of the existing hospital would be unusable, such as the rooms on the top floor and areas nearby or underneath construction equipment, such as cranes, and would result in operational impacts to the hospital, which would not occur from the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would 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. In addition, the full review and permitting processes required by this Alternative 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. This alternative would meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. Overall, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. ЊВ Finding: The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Alternative does not fully meet the project objectives. On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed, independently and separately, by the failure of this alternative to provide the same level of beneficial attributes as the Project. In light of these considerations, this alternative is considered infeasible and has been rejected in favor of the proposed project. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. A summary comparison of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives and the proposed project is provided in Table 1. Each of the alternatives would result in significant and unavoidable noise impacts because the alternatives would result in noise that would substantially exceed the City’s allowable noise limit and the existing ambient noise in the project vicinity. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics impacts, similar hazard impacts, and less helicopter noise impacts (particularly at the interim helistop). As a result, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable and, this alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital, which would not occur from the proposed project. The disruption to operations of the hospital that would occur by this alternative would interfere with the project objectives 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. Therefore, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not fully meet the objectives of the proposed project. ЋЉ Roof Helistop Site but Significant and Existing Hospital Yes, but not to the same extent as the fewer operations, proposed project, construction and existing hospital as it would be disruptive to Unavoidable operations Greater Greater Similar Fewer Greater Greater Greater Fewer and compatibility of objectives related to related to aesthetics Similar. Significant hospital operations IVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Interim Helistop and Unavoidable Would not fully Future Tower development meet project Location as and hazards Site related to aesthetics Greater Greater Greater, Potentially objectives related compatibility of Would not fully Significant and operations and development Interim Site meet project Significant and hazards Unavoidable Alternative Fewer, but to hospital Yes, but not to the same extent as the TABLE 1 and Unavoidable access routes and Similar or fewer, No Project/City-proposed project COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNAT but Significant ЋЊ in regards to Approved Project hazards Yes Yes, but not to the compatibility with Similar or greater, same extent as the proposed project Significant and development in regards to No Project/ hazards and Unavoidable Condition adjacent Existing Noise Significant and Unavoidable Significant Significant Aesthetics Less than Hazards Less than Proposed Project Meets the objectives Category Impact project D. The Project as Proposed 1.Summary of Project The project is described in detail in the Recirculated Final SEIR. 2.Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Recirculated Final SEIR and has compared them with those of the proposed project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interests of the public and achieve the project goals of providing superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state-of-the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop locations would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses. More specifically, the project as proposed would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and would respond to requirements of the FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and addresses various impacts to recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (the “project”). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable noise impacts generated by helicopter activities. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. A.The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that ЋЋ alternatives to the project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the project, or are otherwise infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. B.The proposed project would provide for superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. C.The proposed project would be a critical part of a disaster response plan that would benefit the City of Temecula and the greater region in the event of a disaster. D.The proposed project would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state-of-the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities when ambulance transport is inappropriate or not advantageous to patients. E.The proposed project would facilitate time-sensitive, emergency care that will save lives. Temecula Valley Hospital provides specialty services that are not available all hospitals, including being a STEMI Receiving Center and an accredited Advanced Primary Stroke Center. The project will allow patients to be flown in to the hospital to receive time- sensitive, life-saving care, particularly for heart attacks and strokes. The project will also provide more rapid transfers out of the hospital for specialty service not available at the hospital particularly for critical pediatric care, burn patients, and trauma patients. F.The proposed project would reduce noise and safety conflicts with adjacent residential development, as compared to the previously approved helistop site by rerouting the flight paths to avoid crossing residential uses and locating the flight paths over less developed areas as well as aligning flight paths with prevailing or Santa Ana wind conditions, which allows for maximum control over the aircraft. G.As compared to the previously approved helistop site, the proposed project would reduce safety conflicts and biological impacts with the existing tall trees within the adjacent riparian area, which the Federal Aviation Administration would require to be trimmed or removed under the currently approved flight path and helistop location. H.The proposed project would meet aeronautical agency design safety guidelines for helistops to ensure safe and efficient use of airspace, including Federal Aviation Administration, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. Thus, the proposed Major Modification would provide a benefit to the community by enhancing access to specialized medical procedures in the region, and would provide a benefit to the local community by reducing effects and improving safety over the existing approved helistop locations. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the ЋЌ project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Recirculated SEIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. ЋЍ EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Initials Date Remarks Verification of Compliance 130652 2016 March / ESA City of Temecula Field verification and sign-off by Compliance Indicating Action Noise City of Temecula Building Official Responsible Monitoring Designee Agency or other MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Temecula Valley Enforcement Agency Hospital EXHIBIT B Monitoring Ongoing Phase contact information for registering Temecula Valley Hospital service contracts with air medical companies that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital paths, unless safety precautions helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include Prior to helicopter operations, Temecula Valley Hospital shall develop shall require that all pilots be routinely trained to ensure that optimum which shall include a detailed record of the type of reason for the trip, helicopter type that serves Temecula Valley Hospital. Pilots would be Temecula Valley Hospital shall establish a community working group . The signs will notice riders of the annot be restricted due to the aircraft's preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail shall prepare and implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the instructed in the use of the approved approach and departure flight rnings to equestrian users. The helicopter operations at the interim helistop, the Temecula Valley Hospital arrival and departure flight paths procedures are followed for each tain a log of helicopter activity the reason for diversion shall be Prior to issuance of a City permit allowing All helicopter operations at the interim and permanent helistop and date and time of arrival and departure. If a diversion from Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, 1 and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. require a diversion from any of the flight paths. noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. locations shall use the approved flight Temecula Valley Hospital shall make noise complaints publicly available. Temecula Valley Hospital shall main helicopter noise information and wa Program that is adjacent to the hospital site prescribed flight paths occurs, Project Aircraft flights for medical purposes c Reporting Helistop Mitigation Measure NOI-1: recorded in the log. and Hospital following measures: Monitoring Valley paths. Mitigation Temecula Impact FINAL RECIRCULATED SUPPLEMENTAL EIR TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for April 2016 City of Temecula TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for April 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 Pasadena Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Santa Monica Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 130652 TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Recirculated Final SEIR Page 1.Introduction.....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1Background.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2Use of theRecirculatedFinal EIR and the CEQA Process....................................1-2 1.3Method of Organization...........................................................................................1-3 1.4Focus of Comments................................................................................................1-3 1.5Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................1-4 2.Response to Comments................................................................................................2-1 Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse.....................................................................................2-3 Response to Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse.........................................................2-5 Letter ALUC: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission.......................................2-6 Response to Letter ALUC: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission........2-10 Letter A:Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians.....................................................................2-12 Response to Letter A:Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians.........................................2-13 Letter B:Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians....................................................................2-14 Response to Letter B:Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians........................................2-15 Letter C:Johnson & Sedlack Attorneys at Law.............................................................2-16 Response to Letter C:Johnson & Sedlack Attorneys at Law.................................2-19 3.Errata...............................................................................................................................3-1 3.1Changes to the Recirculated Draft SEIR................................................................3-1 Tables Table 1-1:Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................1-5 Table 2-1:List of Comments Received.................................................................................2-1 i Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final SupplementalEnvironmental ImpactReportApril2016 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Recirculated Final SEIR) was prepared pursuant to the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) (California Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). The City of Temecula is the CEQA lead agency for this Recirculated Final SEIR. The proposed project addressed in this report is a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities at Temecula Valley Hospital in response to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Aeronautics Division comments and conditions, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase. The previously approved helistop location would be developed with a single-story 5,000-square-foot storage building that would be used to store non-hazardous hospital supplies. With the addition of the proposed storage building, the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet (from the 566,160-square-foot facility that was approved in 2010). The change in location of the helistop sites, the proposed storage building, and the potential impacts related to those changes to the project description, is reviewed in this Recirculated SEIRto identify potential environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Major Modification. 1.1Background On November 12, 2014, the City of Temecula (the lead agency) released the Draft SEIRfor a 45- day review period and comment period, whichclosed on December 29, 2014.Pursuant to comments received, additional analysis of the proposed project was conducted and additional information was available; therefore, the City of Temecula included the additional information, analysis, and editorial changes into a Recirculated Draft SEIR document. The additional information regarding 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 theproject vicinity. Additionally, the alternatives analysis was 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. The Recirculated Draft SEIR also includes a discussion of three 1-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril2016 1. Introduction 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. In responseto the Recirculated Draft SEIR,fivecomment letters were received. This Recirculated Final SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and incorporates comments from public agencies and the general public, and contains appropriate responses to those comments. The Recirculated Final SEIR is an informational documentthat must be considered by decision makers before approving ordenying the proposed Major Modification.The RecirculatedDraft SEIR and Response to Comments constitute the Recirculated Final SEIR for the proposed project. As specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines,thisRecirculated Final SEIR consistsof: a)The RecirculatedDraftSEIR or a revision of the draft. b)Comments and recommendations received on the Recirculated Draft SEIR either verbatim or in summary. c)A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Recirculated Draft SEIR. d)The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. e)Any other information added by thelead agency. 1 CEQA Guidelines Section15004 states that before the approvalof any project subject to CEQA, the lead agency must consider the final environmental document, which in thiscase, prior to approval of the proposed Major Modificationthe City must consider theRecirculated Final SEIR. 1.2Use of the Recirculated FinalEIR and the CEQA Process The Recirculated Final SEIR allows the public an opportunity to review any revisions to the Recirculated Draft SEIR, the response to comments, and other components of the Recirculated Draft SEIR, prior to approval of the Major Modification. After completing the Recirculated Final SEIR and before approving the project, the lead agency must make the following three certifications, as required by Section 15090of the CEQA Guidelines: The RecirculatedFinalSEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; 1 The word “approval” is defined by Section 15352 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean “the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person…” In addition, the CEQA Guidelines state that “\[w\]ith private projects, approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project.” 1-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril2016 1.Introduction The Recirculated Final SEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Recirculated Final SEIR prior to approving the project; and The Recirculated Final SEIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis. As required by Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR(including an SEIR)has been certified that identifies one or more significantenvironmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more writtenfindings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.The possible findings are: (1)Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoidor substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2)Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3)Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisionof employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigationmeasures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. These certifications and the Findings of Fact are included in a separate Findings document. 1.3Method of Organization This Recirculated Final SEIR for the proposed Major Modificationcontains information in response to concerns raised by written comments sent to the City of Temecula. The Recirculated Final EIR is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1, Introduction, consists of a summary of the background of the proposed project, information about the certification of the Recirculated Final SEIR, and a brief discussion of the intended uses of the Recirculated Final SEIR. Chapter 1 also contains the final Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Chapter 2, Response to Comments,contains a matrix of agencies and individualsthat submitted written comments on the Recirculated Draft SEIR. This matrix identifies the issue areas addressed by those comments. Chapter 2also includes a copy of each written comment letter, and a written response to each comment. 1.4Focus of Comments Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelinesestablishes the purpose of public review of a draft environmental document, whichinclude: 1-3 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril2016 1. Introduction (a)Sharing expertise, (b)Disclosing agency analyses, (c)Checking for accuracy, (d)Detecting omissions, (e)Discovering public concerns, and (f)Soliciting counter proposals. Sections 15204(a) and 15204(c) of the CEQA Guidelinesfurther state: (a) In reviewing draft EIRs, persons andpublic agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacyof an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors suchas the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts,and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency toconduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommendedor demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in supportof the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Section 15204(f) of the CEQA Guidelinesestablishes the rule that a responsible or trustee agency may submit proposed mitigation measures, limited to the resources subject to the statutory authority of that agency. These measures must include complete and detailed performance objectives for themeasures or refer the lead agency to the appropriate guidelines or reference materials. 1.5Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measuresis included in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impactsand Mitigation Measures, of the Recirculated Draft SEIR. Project impacts, recommended mitigation Table 1-1 measures, and level of significance after mitigation are summarized in . 1-4 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril2016 ESA / 1306526 Introduction 201 Significant and unavoidable April Level of Impact after 1. Mitigation include a detailed record of the type of reason for the trip, and date and time of adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location shall maintain a log of helicopter activity which shall cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's Temecula Valley Hospital shall make contact information for registering noise listop locations shall will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital serves Temecula Valley Hospital. Pilots would be instructed in the use of the Temecula Valley Hospital service contracts with air medical companies shall sure that optimum arrival and use the approved flight paths, unless safety precautions require a diversion departure flight paths procedures are followed for each helicopter type that arrival and departure. If a diversion from prescribed flight paths occurs, the ital and the Valley Hospital shall develop and operations at the interim helistop, the Temecula Valley Hospital shall prepare and Prior to issuance of a City permit allowing helicopter Temecula Valley Hospital shall establish a community working group that implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures: install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is icopter noise S ON MEASURE meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hosp and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include hel All helicopter operations at the interim and permanent he IMPACTS AND MITIGATI in the log. approved approach and departure flight paths. . community to discuss helicopter noise issues. require that all pilots be routinely trained to en Section 21662.4 Prior to helicopter operations, Temecula reason for diversion shall be recorded Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetics impacts. ircraft flights for medical purposes . project would not result in significant hazards impacts 1 complaints publicly available. - 1 from any of the flight paths. PUC TABLE Temecula Valley Hospital 5 well as all related costs. - 1 1: California NTAL - Mitigation Measure NOI Mitigation Measure SUMMARY OF ENVIRONME noise level per A Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Implementation of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Environmental Impact Final Aesthetics Hazards Recirculated Noise CHAPTER 2 Response to Comments As stated in CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15132 and 15362, the Recirculated Final SEIR must contain information summarizing the comments received on the Recirculated Draft SEIR, either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons commenting; and the response of the lead agency to the comments received. Fivecomment letters were received by the City in response to the Recirculated Draft SEIR. This chapter provides copies of each letter received and the responses to Table 2-1 these comments. A summary of the comments is provided below in . TABLE 2-1 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Letter AlphaAgency/CommenterDate of LetterEnvironmental Issues SCHState ClearinghouseFebruary 6, 2016 None ALUCRiverside County March 4, 2016 Airport Land Use Plan Compatibility Airport Land Use Commission ARincon Band of Luiseño IndiansFebruary 9, 2016 Cultural Resources BSoboba Band of Luiseño IndiansMarch 22, 2016 Cultural Resources CJohnson & Sedlack March 23, 2016 Noise and Alternatives Attorneys at Law The responses to comments to the lettersreceived are provided below. These responses do not alter the proposed Major Modification, change the Recirculated Draft SEIR’s significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion such that significantly more severe environmental impacts would result. Instead, the information presented in the responses to comments “merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications” in the Recirculated Draft SEIR, as is permitted by CEQA GuidelinesSection 15088.5(b). Regarding recirculation of the Recirculated Draft SEIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, requires the lead agency to recirculate an EIR only when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review. New information added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR has changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse, environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project’s proponent’s have declined to implement (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). In summary, significant new information consists of: (1)disclosure of a new significant impact; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or 2-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 2. Response to Comments mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project but the project proponent declines to adopt it; and/or (4) the Draft EIR was sofundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). Recirculation is not required where, as stated above, the new information provided in response to the comments received to the Recirculated Draft SEIRmerely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate SEIR (CEQAGuidelines, Section 15088.5). 2-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse This is a formthat comes from the State Clearinghouse in response to environmental documents that have been submitted to the agency for distribution. SCH-1This form provides the dates of public review and comment and lists the stateagencies that reviewed the environmental document. In addition, the formacknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. No further response is necessary. 2-5 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 Letter: ALUC From: Guerin, John \[mailto:JGUERIN@rctlma.org\] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 4:24 PM To: Stuart Fisk Cc: Cooper, Ed; Santos, Barbara Subject: Notice of Completion of a Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR ThankyouforprovidingtheRiversideCountyAirportLandUseCommission(ALUC)withacopyofthe NoticeofCompletionofaRecirculatedDraftSupplementalEIRandaCDofthedocumentrelatingto relocationofapreviouslyapprovedhospitalheliport.TheproposedͻƒğƆƚƩƒƚķźŅźĭğƷźƚƓͼevaluated includesbothͻğƓinterimgroundlevelloĭğƷźƚƓͼandaͻƦĻƩƒğƓĻƓƷlocation\[thatwouldbe\]constructed ontheroofofthefuturehospitalƷƚǞĻƩ͵ͼ TheinterimheliportanalyzedinthedocumentappearstobeatthesiteevaluatedbyALUCinearly 2014.OnFebruary13,2014,ALUCfoundCityofTemeculaCaseNo.PA130141,aproposaltoestablish aninterimheliportconsistingofa48footdiameterTouchdownandLiftoffAreaonagroundmounted concretelandingpadwithperimeterlightingandpaintedmarkingswithinan87footdiameterfinal approachandtakeoffarea(plusa16foottallgroundmountedilluminatedwindcone)onthegrounds ofTemeculaValleyHospital,consistentwiththeCountywidePoliciesofthe2004RiversideCounty AirportLandUseCompatibilityPlan,subjecttofiveconditions(seeattachedcomputercopyofletter). However,thefindingofconsistencyonlyappliedtotheinterimhelistop,asevaluatedintheproject noisestudy.SubsequentALUCreviewwillberequiredforthepermanenthelistop.Itwasfeltthat knownactivitylevelsattheinterimhelistopwillallowforamorepreciseprojectionofactivitylevels 1 (andhencenoise)atthepermanenthelistop.NosingleeventnoiseanalysiswasprovidedtotheALUC fortheinterimhelistop,butsuchanalysisshouldbeconductedinconjunctionwithreviewofthe permanenthelistop. From: Stuart Fisk \[mailto:Stuart.Fisk@cityoftemecula.org\] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 4:54 PM To: Guerin, John Cc: Cooper, Ed; Santos, Barbara Subject: RE: Notice of Completion of a Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR Thank you for your comments John. You are correct that the interim heliport analyzed in the revised SEIR is the same as what the ALUC reviewed in early 2014. The SEIR was revised to add to the noise analysis and alternatives analysis, and to revise the project description and mitigation measures to address comments received by a lawyer hired by the Los Ranchito HOA. The project itself has not changed. Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula (951) 506-5159 stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.org Letter: ALUC From: Guerin, John Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:24 PM To: 'Stuart Fisk' Cc: Cooper, Ed; Santos, Barbara Subject: RE: Notice of Completion of a Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR - Interim vis-a-vis Permanent Helistop TheSEIRidentifiesincreasesinaveragenoiselevelsatsensitivereceptorsaslessthansignificant,but periodicincreasesduetosingleeventnoiselevelsassignificant.Theseconclusionsfollowlogicallyfrom theevidencepresented. Asnotedbelow,theconsistencydeterminationissuedbyALUCin2014wasfortheinterimhelistop.The permanenthelistopshouldbereviewedbyALUCpriortothe/źƷǤ͸ƭdiscretionaryapprovalofthat facility.BothsingleeventandCNELnoiselevelsareprovidedinthenoiseanalysisofthisrevisedSEIR, butthesingleeventnoiseinformationwasnotavailableatthetimeALUCmadeitsdecisionregarding 1 theinterimhelistop. From: Guerin, John \[mailto:JGUERIN@rctlma.org\] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:41 AM To: Stuart Fisk; Jeff Wright (jeffwright@heliplanners.com) Cc: Cooper, Ed; Santos, Barbara Subject: RE: Notice of Completion of a Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR - Interim vis-a-vis Permanent Helistop SinceCALTRANSAeronauticswouldalsoneedtoissueapermitforthepermanenthelistop,wedonot objecttotheCitymovingforwardwiththeenvironmentaldocument,providedthattheMajor ModificationapprovalissubjecttotheconditionsALUCalreadyappliedtotheinterimhelistop,plusan additionalconditionrequiringALUCreviewofthepermanenthelistoppriortoitsapprovalbyCALTRANS Aeronauticsanditsinstallation,andprovidingfor!\[…/͸ƭconditionsonthatpermanenthelistoptobe incorporatedintoanysubsequentpermitsthattheCitymayissuetoimplementtheactionsoftheOffice ofStatewideHealthPlanningandDevelopment. Letter: ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY March 4, 2014 CHAIR Simon Housman Rancho Mirage Mr. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department VICE CHAIRMAN 41000 Main Street Rod Ballance Riverside Temecula, CA 92590 COMMISSIONERS RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW File No.: ZAP1054FV13 Arthur Butler Riverside Related File No.: PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit) APN: 959-080-026 John Lyon Riverside Dear Mr. Fisk: Glen Holmes Hemet On February 13, 2014, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found City of Temecula Case No. PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit), a proposal to establish a Greg Pettis Cathedral City temporary (interim) heliport (specifically, a hospital helistop), consisting of a 48-foot diameter (1,808 square foot) Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) Area on a ground mounted concrete landing Richard Stewart Moreno Valley pad with perimeter lighting and painted markings, within an 87-foot diameter final approach and takeoff area, plus a 16-foot tall ground mounted illuminated wind cone, on the grounds of Temecula Valley Hospital, located northerly of Temecula Parkway and south of De Portola STAFF CONSISTENT Road, with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Director Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions: Ed Cooper John Guerin Russell Brady CONDITIONS: Barbara Santos County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon St., . 14 Floor th 1. No operations (takeoffs or landings) shall be conducted until such time as the State of Riverside, CA 92501 California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has issued a Site (951) 955-5132 Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to Sections 3525 through 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. www.rcaluc.org 2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory Heliport Design. Circular 150/5390-2B, 3. Establishment and operations shall comply with the recommendations and requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013, a copy of which is attached hereto. 4. Helicopter idle time shall be minimized as much as possible. 5.The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) requests that Temecula Valley Hospital consider returning to ALUC to seek advisory comments regarding mitigation of noise impacts on surrounding properties in the event that the average number of monthly operations exceeds sixteen (16) within any given quarterly period. Letter: ALUC RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION March 4, 2014 This finding of consistency applies only to the interim helistop as evaluated in the attached noise study. The permanent helistop will require subsequent review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. It is recommended that single-event noise analysis be conducted in conjunction with ALUC review of the permanent helistop, by which time known activity levels at the interim helistop will allow for a more precise projection of noise levels. If you have any questions, please contact Russell Brady, ALUC Contract Planner, at (951) 955- 0549, or John Guerin, ALUC Principal Planner, at (951) 955-0982. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ______________________________________ Edward C. Cooper, Director RB:bks cc: Temecula Valley Hospital (applicant) (site address) Temecula Valley Hospital, Inc., c/o George Brunner, King of Prussia (tax roll address) Jeff Wright (representative) DPR/Turner, a Joint Venture (payee) Amy C. Towell (nearby landowner) ALUC Staff \\\\Sfo-file01\\projects\\LAX\\13xxxx\\D130652.00 - Temecula Heliport Supplemental EIR\\03 Working Documents\\Final Recirculated SEIR\\Comments Received\\Bracketed\\ALUC Attachment.doc 2 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter ALUC: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission This email communicationbetweenthe Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) andthe Citydiscusses compatibility with the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and includes the ALUC’s2014 Finding of Consistency for the proposed interim helistop as an attachment. ALUC-1Comment: This commentstates that On February 13, 2014 the ALUC found the proposed interim helistop compatible with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to severalconditions. As provided on the attachmentto the email communicationthe conditions include: Requirements for Caltrans permits pursuant to Sections 3525 through 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations Design and construction of the helistopin accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design Operation of the helistop pursuant to FAA recommendations and requirements Minimization of helicopter idling time The commentalsostates that the Recirculated Draft SEIR identifies increases in average noise levels at sensitive receptors as less than significant, but periodic increases due to single-event noise levels as significant, and that these conclusions follow logically from the evidence presented. In addition, thecomment states that the2014 finding of consistency only applied to the interim helistop, and that thepermanent helistop will require subsequent review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. Response: The project as proposed is consistent with the conditionslisted in the email attachment.As described in Section 2.0, Project Description of the Recirculated Draft SEIR, the project is proposed, in part, to meet current Riverside County ALUC,FAA,andCaltrans Aeronautics criteria and is designed in compliance with all relevant regulations, such as flight paths, obstruction clearance, noise requirements, and wind directions.In addition, as shown on Figure 2-5, Heliport Design Characteristics in the Recirculated Draft EIR,the designs of the proposed helistops arebe in accordance with all FAA recommendations related to heliport designs, and would be operated in accordance with all FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and Riverside County ALUC safety criteria. Furthermore, the operation discussion inSection 2.0, Project Description of the Recirculated Draft SEIR,describes that helicopter engines would run for a limited time during landing and takeoff; and that helicopters would be shut off while parked 2-10 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 2. Response to Comments at the helistop.Thus, helicopter idling time would be minimized.Overall, the proposed project is consistent with the conditions listed in this comment. The City has coordinated with theRiverside County ALUC in regards to review of the permanent helistopand has conditioned the permanent helistopto return to the ALUC to seek acompatibility determination with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, such as was found for the interim helistopon February 13, 2014. The City’s condition requires the compatibility determination prior to the permanent helistop’sapproval by Caltrans Aeronautics and prior to commencement of its installation. 2-11 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 Letter: A 1 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter A: Rincon Band of LuiseÐo Indians This letter comes from the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indiansand discusses the potential of the tribe to have cultural resources within the project site. A-1Comment: This comment states that the project location is within the territory of the Luiseño peoplebut is not within Rincon's historic boundaries, and thus the commenter defers to the Pechanga or Soboba Band of Luiseño Indianswho are closer to the project area. Response: The comment does not discuss the environmental issues or analysiswithin the Recirculated Draft SEIR; thus, no further response is necessary. 2-13 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 Letter: B March 22, 2016 Attn: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula Community Development, Planning Division 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification – 31700 Temecula Parkway The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians appreciates your observance of Tribal Cultural Resources and their preservation in your project. The information provided to us on said project(s) has been assessed through our Cultural Resource Department, where it was concluded that although it is outside the existing reservation, the project area does fall within the bounds of our Tribal Traditional Use Areas. At this time the Soboba Band does not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources in the specified areas that the project encompasses, but does 1 request that the appropriate consultation continue to take place between concerned tribes, project proponents, and local agencies. Also, working in and around traditional use areas intensifies the possibility of encountering cultural resources during any future construction/excavation phases that may take place. For this reason the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requests that approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing, associated with this project. The Soboba Band wishes to defer to the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, who are in closer proximity to the project. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Joseph Ontiveros Cultural Resource Director Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Phone (951) 654-5544 ext. 4137 Cell (951) 663-5279 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Confidentiality: The entirety of the contents of this letter shall remain confidential between Soboba and the City of Temecula. No part of the contents of this letter may be shared, copied, or utilized in any way with any other individual, entity, municipality, or tribe, whatsoever, without the expressed written permission of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter B: Soboba Band of LuiseÐo Indians This letter comes from the SobobaBand of Luiseño Indians and discusses the potential of the tribe to have cultural resources within the project site.. B-1Comment: This comment states that although it is outside the existing reservation, the project area does fall within the bounds of the Soboba Tribal Traditional Use Areas. At this time the Soboba Band does not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources in the specified areas that the project encompasses, but does request that approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing, associated with this project, and that theydeferto the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, who are in closer proximity to the projectsite. Response: The project site has been under construction for numerous years; since approval of the hospital project by the City in 2008. The City has ongoing communication with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indiansregarding projects within the City, and will continue the appropriate consultation with thePechangatribe, as they are closestto the project site. 2-15 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 Letter: C Johnson Sedlack ATTORNEYSLAW at Raymond W. Johnson, Esq., AICP 26785 Camino Seco, Temecula, CA 92590 : Ray@SoCalCEQA.com Carl T. Sedlack, Esq., Retired Abigail A. Smith, Esq. Abby@SoCalCEQA.com Kimberly Foy, Esq. Kim@SoCalCEQA.com Kendall Holbrook, Esq. Kendall@SoCalCEQA.com Telephone: (951) 506-9925 Facsimile: (951) 506-9725 March 23, 2016 Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula, Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.org VIAU.S.MAIL and E-MAIL Re:Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; Comment Period ending March 23, 2016 To the City of Temecula: , I submit this letter regarding the proposed Temecula Valley Helistop Project and associated Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (RDSEIR). The operation of the helistop at the interim location will result in significant noise impacts to the immediately adjacent Los Ranchitos community as well as the equestrian trail. Los Ranchitos urges the City to consider the adoption of an alternative to the project which moves the interim helistop location farther away from the Los Ranchitos community and nearer to Highway 79. Because the interim location will be used for years 1 to come, Los Ranchitos is deeply concerned that residents will be subjected to loud helicopter noise on a long-term basis. Regarding the RDSEIR, I have the following comments: Project Description While the RDSEIR provides some specificity as to the anticipated timing of the permanent helistop location, the document still provides little assurance that impacts RDSEIR, p. 2-2 Letter: C March 23, 2016 Page 2 consistent with the 2011 Major Modification approval (PA10-0194 Condition No. 27, requiring applicant to commence construction of the future hospital tower (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 ssuming the interim location begins operation in year 2016, noise impacts will be significant at that location for at least six years until the permanent 1 location is operational. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the second hospital tower/permanent location will be built, or that it will be built according to schedule. Also, the second hospital tower/permanent helistop location will require future review and/or approvals by relevant agencies, which could result in revisions to current plans. We note, for instance, that the future cancer center in Phase V is in the direct flight path of the permanent helistop location (Figure 2-4). In sum, the RDSEIR leads the reader to believe that noise impacts at the interim location are of ature; this is inaccurate when there is no assurance that the permanent location will become a reality in the near future. Project Alternatives The RDSEIR supplements the Draft SEIR analysis by adding three (3) alternatives: a second No-Project/Existing Condition Alternative; a Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative; and an Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative. Despite the expanded analysis, the RDSEIR indicates that each alternative is inferior or more difficult to implement than the proposed project. The RDSEIR also identifies the newly evaluated Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As with other alternatives, the RDSEIR indicates that the ESA is inferior to the proposed project. CEQA provides that the lead agency may not approve a project with significant 2 impacts if feasible alternatives exist that substantially lessen significant project impacts. Public Resources Code § 21002. The feasibility of alternatives must be evaluated within the context of the proposed project. Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) th 147 Cal.App.4 587, 598. We submit there are feasible alternatives which would lessen significant operational noise impacts as to the interim location, particularly to the Los Ranchitos community as well as the equestrian trail. For instance, the Alternative Interim Site alternative, which moves the interim helistop location closer to Highway 79 and makes the flight path more continuous with Highway 79, would reduce operational noise impacts at receptor sites 2, 3, 6A, 6B and 8. In particular, noise impacts as to the three equestrian trail locations would be Letter: C March 23, 2016 Page 3 substantially less than under the Interim Location. Noise impacts at Site 2a home within the Los Ranchitos communitywould also be substantially less. See RDSEIR pp. 2 4-34 35. This alternative is feasible. For instance, any of the true project alternatives would require further review and approval by relevant agencies and even the proposed project requires additional review/approval. Also for instance, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop alternative reduces operational noise impacts as to many receptor locations. The RDSEIR at p. 4-42 claims that the Future Tower Location would result in short-term maximum noise level at receptors of 1.4 dB Lmax greater in prevailing wind conditions. This conclusion is inaccurate or at least misleading. Table 4-7 indicates that all receptor locations would experience an improvemen t in noise conditions under the Future Tower Location alternative with the exception of Sites 3 and 7. At Sites 2 and 6C, for instance, there are 3 significant improvements. Id. The discussion on p. 4-43 even appears to reference the wrong alternative where it references the Alternative Overall, the discussion of the comparison of the Future Tower Location to the proposed project gives the reader a false impression of the relative impacts. Because the Future Tower Location substantially reduces significant noise impacts over the Interim Location as to the majority of receiver locations, it is environmentally superior to the proposed project. Moreover, this alternative has not been shown to infeasible within the meaning of CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments as you move forward with preparation of the Final EIR and as you consider the scope and direction of the proposed project. Sincerely, Raymond Johnson, Esq., AICP, LEED Green Associate JOHNSON & SEDLACK 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter C: Johnson & Sedlack Attorneys at Law This letter expresses concern about the long-term noise impacts on the Los Ranchitos community and suggests an alternative site farther away from theLos Ranchitos communityand closer to Highway 79. C-1Comment: This comment states that the Recirculated Draft SEIR provides little assurance that impacts associated with the “interim” locationwill, in fact, be “temporary” and that there is no guarantee that the second hospital tower/permanent location will be built, or that it will be built according to schedule. The comment also states that the second hospital tower/permanent helistop location will require future review and/or approvals by relevant agencies, which could result in revisions to current plans, such as related to the future cancer center in Phase V. In sum, the comment states that the Recirculated Draft SEIR leads the reader to believe that noise impacts at the interim location are of a “short-term” nature; the comment further asserts that this is inaccurate when there is no assurance that the permanent location will become a reality in the near future. Response: As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, on page 2-2of the Recirculated Draft SEIR, operation of the permanent helistop is 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.Thus, the Recirculated Draft SEIR provides a clear description of the schedule for use of both the interim and permanent helistops. In addition, as described above in Response to Comment ALUC-1to the Riverside County ALUC communication,the project is designed in compliance with all Riverside County ALUC, FAA, and Caltrans Aeronautics relevant criteria, such as flight paths, obstruction clearance, noise requirements, and wind directions.In regards to the future cancer center in Phase V, thebuilding is proposed to be a one-story building (as described in the Recirculated Draft SEIRon page 2-1) and would not result in any airspace obstruction-clearance constraintsfor the permanentheliport that would be on top of the five-story tower. The City has coordinated with the Riverside County ALUC in regards to review the permanent helistop to provide a compatibility determination with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 RiversideCounty Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which will be done prior to the permanent helistop’s approval by Caltrans Aeronauticsand prior to 2-19 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 2. Response to Comments commencement of its installation. Thus, the City does not anticipate the process to delay the project schedule described above. Furthermore, and also as described in Section 2.0, Project Description, on page 2-2 of the Recirculated Draft SEIR, while the interim helistop will serve as a temporary location until the future hospital tower is constructed in Phase IV(in 2022),theRecirculated Draft SEIR 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. Therefore, the Recirculated Draft SEIRdescribes both the anticipated short-term and unanticipated potential long-term impacts of theinterim helistop. C-2Comment: This comment summarizes the alternatives analysis of the Recirculated Draft SEIR and statesthat per CEQA the lead agency may not approve a project with significant impacts if feasible alternatives exist that substantially lessen significant project impacts.In addition, the comment states that there are feasible alternatives which would lessen significant operational noise impacts relatedthe interim helistop location to the Los Ranchitos community andequestrian trail.The comment asserts thatthe Alternative Interim Site alternative, which moves the interim helistop location closer to Highway 79 and makes the flight path more continuous with Highway 79, would substantially reduce operational noise at receptors within the Los Ranchitos community and the equestrian trail. Response: It is agreed that noise related impacts under the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be less thanby the proposed project. As described in Section 4.0, Alternatives, on page 4-35,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 SantaAna wind conditions. Further, the helicopter overflight noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exteriorshort-term noise standard at 2fewer receptor locations in Santa Ana wind conditions.Thus, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced single-event noise impacts compared to the proposed project. However,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to result in significant unavoidablenoiseimpactsbecause 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.This alternative would exceed the exteriorshort-term noise standard at 9of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing winds and at 8 of the 10 receptor sites 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 than from the proposed interim helistop. Conversely, Sites 1 and 5, which are in close proximity to the alternative’s east/west 2-20 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 2. Response to Comments 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. Additionally,this alternative would result in greater aesthetics and hazards impacts than the proposed interim helistop. As described on page 4-29, theAlternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativewould be required to install red obstruction lights along Temecula Parkway and would be surrounded by a 5-foot-tall security fencethat would be visible to travelers along Temecula Parkway. Therefore, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative wouldhavegreater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project’sless- than-significantimpacts. In regards to hazards, it is described on page 4-30,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.Accordingly, 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 isthe policy of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to only grant variances for one side of a flight path (see Appendix A of the Recirculated DSEIR). 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.As a result, the planned MOB 2building, along with the already developed underground utilities, would need to be relocated or reconfigured so that the MOB 2 building would not penetrate the transitional surface, and that only one transitional surface would be penetrated. Overall, the penetration of a transitional surface and the need for variances on both sides of the flight pathfor 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 Alternative are greater than that of the proposed interim helistopsite. In addition, the flight path of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative 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.The rotorwash (windsgenerated from the helicopter) could also impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety on sidewalks along Temecula Parkway. 2-21 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 2. Response to Comments In comparison, the flight path of the proposed interim helistop would travel from behind the existing and planned hospital facilities, and would cross (not travel along) Temecula Parkway at a location farther away from the hospital that would provide the distance and trajectory to be far above the roadway to not cause the distraction that could be caused by the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. The proposed flight path would not cross vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrianpaths (such as would be done by the alternative interim helistop site), and would not result in the potential for hazardsthat could occur from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative flight path. Overall, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativewouldresult in greater potentially significant impacts related to hazards than the less-than-significant impacts that would occur from the proposed interim helistop site.Additionally, this interim alternative would be required to undergo full new permitting processes with Federal Aviation Administration, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission and Caltrans Aeronautics, which the proposed interim helistop has already completed. This would further delay the introduction of this facility at the hospital for Temecula residents. Althoughnoise impactsto the Los Ranchitos community and the equestrian trail under the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be less than by the proposed project, the alternativedoes not substantially lessen oravoid significantnoiseimpacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Section 15126.6 and Public Resources Code Section 21002, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativewould not be environmentally or feasibly superiorthan the proposed project because the significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise would remain and it would generate greaterimpacts to aesthetics and greater and potentially significant hazard impactsthanwould not occur by the proposed project. C-3Comment: This comment states that Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative reduces operational noise impacts at many receptor locations. The comment states that theconclusion that the Future Tower Location would result in short-term maximum noise level at receptors of 1.4 dB Lmax greater in prevailing wind conditions is inaccurate or at least misleading. The comment also states that Table 4-7 indicates that receptor locations Sites 2 and 6C would experience significant improvementsin noise conditions under the Future Tower Location Alternative and thatSites 3 and 7would not. Thecomment also states that the discussion on p. 4-43 appears to reference the wrong alternative where it references the “Alternative Interim Helistop flight path.” Should it not be the “Future Tower Location Alternative” flight path? The comment further states that the comparison of the Future Tower Location to the proposed project gives the reader a false impression of the relative impacts. The comment asserts that the Future Tower Location substantially reduces significant noise impacts over the interim helistop location to the majorityof receiver locations, and further asserts 2-22 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 2. Response to Comments that it is environmentally superior to the proposed projectandhas not been shown to infeasible within the meaning of CEQA. Response: As described in Section 4.0, Alternatives, on page 4-42 and in Table 4-7, the noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum noise level of 94.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 93.7 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions. In comparison, the noise from the interim helistoplocation would be 93.4 dB Lmax, in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana conditions. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum noise level thatis1.4 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.This information is not inaccurate or misleading, and is provided in both the text and data tables within the Recirculated Draft SEIR. A comparison of Table 4-7 (single-event noise levels from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative) and Table 3.3-9 (single-event noise levels from the interim helistop) shows that Receptor Sites 1, 2, 6A, 6B, 6C(the three sites along the equestrian trail), and 9, would experience lower maximum noise levels from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative than by the proposed interim helistop location;however, Sites 3, 5 and 7would experience greater maximum noise levels by the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative in both prevailing and Santa Ana winds, compared to the proposed interim helistop location.In addition, Sites 3, 5 and 7are located adjacent to the densely populated Madera Vista Apartments and Country Glen Communityand would impact more receivers than the Sites at the non-residential equestrian trail and lower densityresidentialuses within the Los Ranchitos Community.Moreover, 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 the same number of receptor locations during prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights) and at one less receptor location in Santa Ana conditions. Overall, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidableimpact because helicopter noise from the alternative would be substantially louder than both the City’s allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levelsat sensitive receptors.Thus, noise impacts from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternativewould be similar to the interim location’s significant and unavoidable noise impact. Furthermore, as described in Section 4.0, Alternatives,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternativelocation at the future tower sitecould only be used until commencement of development of the Future Tower in Phase IV.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 2-23 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 2. Response to Comments permanent helistop (on the roof of the new tower) would be utilized. Therefore, under this alternative the Los Ranchitos communityand equestrian trail would be subject to noise from two different interim helistop locations, both of which would result in significant and unavoidable noise impacts.Because the significant and unavoidable noise impacts would remain, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative was determined to not be environmentally superior than the proposed project. As all of this detail is provided withinthe Recirculated Draft SEIR,itdoes not provide the reader a false impression of the relative impacts, but provides a detailed description in text, data tables, and graphics showing flight paths and impact locationsof the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur from both the proposed project and the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative. There is however a typographical error in the first sentence, of the third paragraph on page4-43, which currently states “the Alternative Interim Helistop flight path.”The text should have stated: this alternative interim helistop flight path”.This correction will be provided as an Errata that will be included in theRecirculated Final SEIR. In addition, to the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would result from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative, this alternative wouldresult in more red obstruction lighting and a more visible helistop that would be located in front of the existing hospital building,surrounded by security fencing,and visible from Temecula Parkway; thus,as described on pages 4-37 and 4-38 of theRecirculated Draft SEIR,this alternative would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts. In regards to hazards,the Recirculated Draft SEIR describes on pages 4-38 and 4-39 that theFuture Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternativeflight path would have obstruction clearance conflicts with the existing trees in the drainage that is adjacent to the hospital site, the planned MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings,and the “future building site” located on the south east corner of the project site. 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.These types ofobstruction clearance conflictswould not occur by the proposed project. Additionally,the flight path that would be used by the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in helicopters at lower altitudes crossingTemecula Parkway, the parking lot, and the main hospital access road to land or take off from this interimhelistop 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, and 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 rotorwash from this flight pathcould impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the 2-24 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 2. Response to Comments sidewalk that fronts hospital. As described above in Response to Comment C-2, the proposed interim helistop site would not result in such hazard related impacts. Thus, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts related to hazards than the less-than-significant impacts that would occur from the proposed interim helistop site. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and Public Resources Code Section 21002, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not be environmentally or feasibly superior than the proposed project because the significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise would remain and it would generate greater impacts to aesthetics and greater and potentially significant hazardimpacts that would not occur by the proposed project. The purpose of the CEQA alternatives analysis is to determine whether there is a feasible way to achieve the basic objectives of the project, while avoiding impacts(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and Public Resources Code Section 21002), and pursuant to the analysis in the Recirculated Draft SEIR,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternativeand the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativediscussed in Response to Comment C-2, above, would not substantially reduceor avoidsignificant and unavoidable noise impacts and would result in additional aesthetics and hazards impacts that would not occur from the proposed project. 2-25 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 CHAPTER 3 Errata This errataincludes edits to the Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Recirculated Draft SEIR) for theproposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project. Revisions herein do not result in newsignificant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, nor do they alterthe conclusions of the environmental analysis. This erratahas been prepared in response to public comments received on theRecirculated Draft SEIR. Additional editorial changes that have been initiated by City staff are herebyincorporated. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new orgreater impacts than identified and addressed in the Recirculated Draft SEIR. Revisions to the Recirculated Draft SEIR areshown below as excerpts from the Recirculated Draft SEIR text. Added or modified text is underlined(example), while deleted text will have a strike out (example) through the text. In conformance with Section 15121 oftheCEQA Guidelines,this errata, combined with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,Response to Comments, and the Recirculated Draft SEIRcomprise the Recirculated Final SEIR, and are intended to serve asdocuments that will inform the decision-makers and the public of environmental effectsof the project. 3.1Changes to Recirculated Draft SEIR Text Section 4.8, Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative; page 4-43, first sentence in the third paragraph. “thethis Aalternative Iinterim Hhelistop flight path,” 3-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportApril 2016 DRAFT RECIRCULATED SUPPLEMENTAL EIR 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 ValleyHospitalHelistopProject Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page Executive Summary.............................................................................................................S-1 1.Introduction.....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1Summary.................................................................................................................1-2 1.2Project Background.................................................................................................1-2 1.3Environmental Review............................................................................................1-4 1.4Purpose of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report....................................1-8 1.5Organization of the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.....1-9 1.6Public Involvement and Reviewof the Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report..............................................................................1-10 2.Project Description.........................................................................................................2-1 2.1Introduction..............................................................................................................2-1 2.2Project Objectives...................................................................................................2-4 2.3Project Location and Site Characteristics...............................................................2-5 2.4Proposed Major Modification..................................................................................2-7 2.5Discretionary Approvals.......................................................................................2-17 2.6Cumulative Projects.............................................................................................2-18 3.Environmental Impactsand Mitigation Measures 3.1Aesthetics............................................................................................................3.1-1 3.2Hazards..............................................................................................................3.2-1 3.3Noise...................................................................................................................3.3-1 4.Project Alternatives.......................................................................................................4-1 4.1Introduction..............................................................................................................4-1 4.2Significant and Unavoidable Impacts......................................................................4-2 4.3Alternatives Analyzedand Eliminated....................................................................4-3 4.4Project Objectives...................................................................................................4-7 4.5No Project /Existing Condition Alternative..............................................................4-8 4.6No Project /City Approved Helistop Alternative...................................................4-16 4.7Alternative Interim Helistop Site...........................................................................4-24 4.8Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop SiteAlternative................................4-36 4.9Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative.............................................4-45 4.10Environmentally Superior Alternative...................................................................4-53 5.References......................................................................................................................5-1 6.List of Preparers.............................................................................................................6-1 i Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 Table of Contents Page AppendixA:FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ and Riverside County ALUCCorrespondence List of Figures 2-1Regional Location Map..............................................................................................2-6 2-2Project Vicinity Map....................................................................................................2-8 2-3Proposed Hospital Storage Building and Interim Helistop Location..........................2-9 2-4Existing and Proposed Interim and Permanent Helistop Locations.......................2-10 2-5Helistop Design Characteristics..............................................................................2-15 2-6Hospital Storage Building Elevations......................................................................2-16 2-7Cumulative Projects................................................................................................2-21 3.3-1Effects of Noise on People.....................................................................................3.3-3 3.3-2Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations.....................................................................3.3-8 3.3-3Interim Helistop North-Flow Flight Corridorsfor Santa Ana Wind Conditions....3.3-20 for Prevailing Wind Conditions.....3.3-21 3.3-4Interim Helistop South-Flow Flight Corridors 3.3-5Permanent Helistop North-Flow Flight Corridorsfor Santa Ana Wind Conditions........................................................................................................3.3-22 3.3-6Permanent Helistop South-Flow Flight Corridorsfor Prevailing Wind Conditions........................................................................................................3.3-24 3.3-7CNEL Contours for Interim Helistop Location......................................................3.3-27 3.3-8CNEL Contours for Permanent Helistop Location...............................................3.3-28 4-1City Approved Helistop –CNEL Contours..............................................................4-12 East-Flow Flight Corridorsfor Santa Ana Wind Conditions 4-2City ApprovedSite ............................................................................................................................4-17 West-Flow Flight Corridorsfor Prevailing Wind Conditions.....4-18 4-3City ApprovedSite 4-4Alternative Interim Helistop Site..............................................................................4-25 4-5AlternativeInterimHelistop -North-Flow Flight Corridorsfor Santa Ana Wind Conditions..........................................................................................................4-27 4-6Alternative Interim Helistop -South-Flow Flight Corridorsfor Prevailing Wind Conditions...........................................................................................................4-28 4-7Alternative Interim Helistop CNEL Contours...........................................................4-32 4-8Alternative Interim Helistop CNEL Contours...........................................................4-41 4-9CNEL Contoursfor the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative...............4-49 List of Tables S-1Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures..............................S-10 2-1Planned and Approved Projects in the Project Area..............................................2-19 3.3-1Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements............................................3.3-7 3.3-2Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL)........................................................3.3-10 3.3-3City of Temecula Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix.......................................3.3-11 3.3-4City of Temecula Land Use Maximum Noise Level Standards...........................3.3-14 3.3-5City of Temecula Municipal Code Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix.............3.3-15 3.3-6Helicopter Operation Times ofDay (CNEL).........................................................3.3-19 3.3-7EC-135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages –Interim Location.............3.3-23 3.3-8EC-135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages –PermanentLocation......3.3-23 3.3-9Single-Event Noise Levels for the Interim Helistop..............................................3.3-29 3.3-10Single-Event Noise Levels for the Permanent Helistop.......................................3.3-30 3.3-11Existing Ambient Noise and Location Point Noise for the InterimSite................3.3-32 ii Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 Table of Contents Page List of Tables(cont.) 3.3-12Existing Ambient Noise and Location Point Noise for the Permanent Site.........3.3-32 3.3-13Helicopter CNELNoise for Sites 6 through 9......................................................3.3-33 4-1Existing Ambient CNEL Measurements and helicopter CNEL Noise from the City Approved Site..............................................................................................4-13 4-2Single-Event noise Levels from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative......4-14 4-3Single-Event Noise Levels –No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative.........4-22 4-4Existing Ambient CNEL Noise and Helicopter Noise from the Alternative Interim Site..........................................................................................................4-33 4-5Single-Event Noise for the Alternative Interim Site Alternative..............................4-34 4-6Existing Ambient CNEL Noise and Helicopter Noise from the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative..........................................................4-42 4-7Single-Event Noise Levels –Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative...........................................................................................................4-43 4-8Single-Event Noise Levels for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative...........................................................................................................4-50 4-9Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives and the Proposed Project.........................4-54 iii Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 Acronyms Used in this Report ACAdvisory Circular ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ALUCPAirport Land Use Compatibility Plan amslabove mean sea level CCRCalifornia Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CUPConditional Use Permit dB decibel DHS California Department of Health Services EIR Environmental Impact Report EMS Emergency Medical Services FAA Federal Aviation Administration FARFederal Aviation Regulation FATO final approach and takeoff area FHWA Federal Highway Administration Hz Hertz HVACheating, ventilation, and air conditioning INM Integrated Noise Model Leq Equivalent Continuous Noise Level MNDMitigated Negative Declaration MSLmean sea level NOPNotice of Preparation OSHPD California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development PDOPlanned Development Overlay SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TLOF touchdown and liftoff area UCSDUniversity of California San Diego UHS Universal Health Services,Inc. iv Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 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 proposingaMajor 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 facilitywould 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 impactsthat could result from the revised project. This section provides a summary of the RDSEIR-2016. Thereader should review the entire document to fully understand the proposed Major Modificationand its potential environmental consequences. S.2California Environmental Quality Act Documentation Historyof the Hospital Project The City of Temeculapreviously approved development and operation of the hospital through certification of an EIR in 2006. ASupplemental EIR was prepared in 2008 and an Addendum to the Supplemental EIR was prepared in 2010. Currently, the hospital is proposing aMajor Modificationtochange the location of the City-approved helistop and construct a 5,000-square- foot storage building. These components of change to the approved hospital projectrequire 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. S-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 Executive Summary 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. S-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary With buildout of the hospital project, the helistop would be relocated tothe roofofa 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,wouldeach 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.5Project Objectives City Objectives The City’s objectivesfor 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. S-3 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 Executive Summary Applicant Objectives The objectives of UniversalHealth 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 requireready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Proposed ProjectObjectives 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.6Environmental Impacts Evaluated in this Draft Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Through preparation of anInitial 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 toevaluatepotentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, hazards, andnoise,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. S-4 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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, Table S-1 mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in 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 impactsbecause the California’s Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4 states that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local restrictions relatedto 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 impactsfrom short-term noise events from helicopter overflights are significant and unavoidable. Asthis is the case, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for the project, in accordance with CEQA GuidelinesSection 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.7Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has consideredalternatives for the hospitalhelistop. Through the comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed.The CEQA Guidelinesrequire that a range of alternatives addressed be “governed by a S-5 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 thisRDSEIR- 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 andCity of Temecula Fire and Police Departmentshave 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 warnpilots of their locations at night. This alternative would include development of the storage building, as proposed. Implementation S-6 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 theaeronautical 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 towerwould 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 witheitherthe 2013 CBCor the CBC in place when building permits are issued. Currently, the 2013 CBC regulations are mandated,which aremore stringent in terms of seismic requirements than the 2007 CBC. The 2013 CBC requires the following improvements to support ahelistop 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 needto bestrengthened 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 S-7 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 helicopterengine 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 analysiswithin this section, the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternativeis the Environmentally Superior Alternative.The Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternativewould 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 S-8 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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/orwould 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 thatwould 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 Alternativewould 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. S-9 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 6 ESA / D130652 201 February Level of Impact after Mitigation Significant and unavoidable location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise activity which shall make contact information for registering noise , the All helicopter operations at the interim and permanent helistop locations shall will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital Temecula Valley Hospital service contracts with air medical companies shall time Pilots would be instructed in the use of the flight paths, unless safety precautions require a diversion ircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise require that all pilots be routinely trained to ensure that optimum arrival and shall prepare and ture flight paths procedures are followed for each helicopter type that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the develop and helicopter Temecula Valley Hospital shall establish a community working group that If a diversion from prescribed flight paths occurs implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures: adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop include a detailed record of the type of reason for the trip, and date and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE allowing Prior to helicopter operations, Temecula Valley Hospital shall Temecula Valley Hospital shall maintain a log of helicopter pital permit , the Temecula Valley Hos City reason for diversion shall be recorded in the log. approach and departure flight paths. community to discuss helicopter noise issues. issuance of a -1 . Section 21662.4 serves Temecula Valley Hospital. TABLE S 10 al shall Prior to . S- Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetics impacts. complaints publicly available . from any of the flight paths. result in significant hazards impacts NTAL at the interim helistop well as all related costs. of arrival and departure. Temecula Valley Hospit 1: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONME - Mitigation Measure NOI PUC approved Mitigation Measure California approved use the depar operations level per A Implementation of the proposed project would not . Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Report Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Project Environmental Impact Hospital Helistop Executive Summary Aesthetics Temecula Valley Hazards Noise CHAPTER 1 Introduction This chapter provides an introduction and describes the background of the proposed Temecula ValleyHospitalHelistop 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, anSEIR (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 thata 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. 1-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 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 aDraftEIR(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 recirculatethe document. 1.1Summary 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 helistopfacilities 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 interimhelistop 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 571,160square 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 changesare reviewed in this RDSEIR- 2016 to determine if any additional environmental impacts would result from the revised project. 1.2Project 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 challengeto the hospital projectwas filedon the grounds that the EIR was inadequate, whichresulted in a ruling that found that the EIR did not adequately address several areas, andthat 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 anSEIR,pursuant to the court’s direction,thatwas certified in 2008. 1-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 apartmentsthat 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 themulti-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 requiresseveral 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 arelocated 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 1-3 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 1. Introduction affect the safe and efficientuse 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 aHeliport 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 PlanLand Use Map, which limitedthe 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 eightlots into a single parcel. The City circulated an Initial Study from March 8, 2005 to April 6, 2005 (State Clearinghouse # 2005031017)withthe intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. At the Planning Commission hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City receivedpublic 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 1-4 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 withCEQA 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. February2011 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 1-5 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 wouldhave 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. November2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ANotice 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, theDraft 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 forthe sensitive noise receptors in the project vicinity.This analysis resulted in modifications to the noise mitigation measure (NOI-1). 1-6 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 alternativesthat involve six different locations for the helistopthat 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 helistopwas initiated by the City with the preparation of an Initial Study. Through the preparation of the Initial Study, the City determined that the proposed projectmay 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). 1-7 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 itscircumstances 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 GuidelinesSection 15162(a).) CEQA GuidelinesSection15163 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 inCEQA GuidelinesSection15162 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 GuidelinesSection15163, a SEIR is necessary if there is a change in the project or circumstances, or new information of substantial importance that was not known 1-8 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 GuidelinesSection15163. 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 GuidelinesSection 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 locationsand proposed storage building.As described previously, CEQA GuidelinesSection15163 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 Organizationof this Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report This RDSEIR-2016 was prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA GuidelinesSection 15163.It includes CEQA-required sections and incorporates the balanceof the CEQA sections contained in the original EIR by reference. This RDSEIR-2016 is organized as follows. 1-9 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 1. Introduction Executive Summary: The executive summary, which precedes this introduction,includes a brief understanding of theproposed revisions to the City-approved project and summarizesthe 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 2008SEIR, 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 helistoplocations 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 areincorporated 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 datathat contributed to the environmental analysis. Chapter 6 – List of Preparers: Persons who prepared this environmental document. 1.6 Public Involvement and Reviewof 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 1-10 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 1. Introduction 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 1-11 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter provides a description of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital HelistopProject (proposed project), along with a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project site, required discretionary actions, and objectives of the project. 2.1Introduction 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 locatedat 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula. The projectapplicant, Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS), is proposing a Major Modification to change the location of the planned hospital helistopthat would provide new interim and permanenthelistop locations on the hospital site. The hospital, as approvedby the City, is being constructed and operated in phases and at build out would consistof: 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 helistopto 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: 2-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 2. Project Description Phase IPhase II Site Grading(Medical Office Building) MOB 1 Main Entry DriveMOB 1 Parking (326 spaces) Off-Site Improvements Final Underground WQMP BMP Chambers at Hospital (140 Beds) Five-Story Tower Southeast Corner of Site Hospital Parking (434 Spaces) Horse Trail Temporary Water Retention Basin at Southeast Corner of Site, Removed in Phase III Phase IV Phase III Hospital (180 Beds) Five-Story Tower MOB 2 Hospital Parking (128 Spaces) MOB 2 Parking (300 Spaces) Phase VPhase VI Cancer CenterFitness Center Cancer Center Parking (50 Spaces)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. 1 The proposed Major Modification would relocate the City-approved helistop 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 PhaseIV 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 Heliport Design According to the FAA, in its advisory circular, a helistop is a term sometimes used to describe a minimally developed heliport for boarding and discharging passengers or cargo. Inthis case, “passengers” would be patients and/or medical crew members and “cargo” would be live organs. 2-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 changesare evaluated within this RDSEIR-2016. Helistop ApprovalProcess City-Approved Helistop The City-approved helistop site has not been through thefull approval processof other agencies 2 that are required to review helistops, which include: 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: Rotate the single proposed flight path clockwise (approximately 36 degrees) to clear o 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 Arrange for red obstruction lights to be installed on those buildings (Miller, 2011, o 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 pathin a northwestern direction that would crossdirectly over the Los Ranchitos neighborhood (Condition d), and removing or trimming the height of treesthat are not under the jurisdiction of the hospital or theCity (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 HazardsRegulatory Setting Please refer to Chapter 3.2, , Section 3.2.2, , for additional information on the regulatory setting for the project. 2-3 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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-siteland 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 aeronauticsagencies.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 aHeliport 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. 2.2Project 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. 2-4 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 2. Project Description ApplicantObjectives 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 centeradjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who requireready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Proposed ProjectObjectives 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 Temeculathat help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhancedaccessibility to state-of-the art medical procedures at other regionalhospitalsor 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. 2.3Project 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 Figure 2-1 and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, as shown in .Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate-15 (I-15) and Temecula Parkway. The site is 2miles east of I-15. 2-5 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 PROJECT SITE 02 Miles Xiqigype Gmx} Fsyrhev} Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2010 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map 2. Project Description Project Site Characteristics The Temecula Valley Hospitalsite 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 andcommercial 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 Figure 2-2 project site. A project vicinity map is provided as . 2.4Proposed MajorModification 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 PhaseIV. 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 previouslyCity- Figure 2-3 approved helistop location. 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 Figure 2-4 As shown in ,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. 2-7 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 130652 . Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR PROJECT SITEPROJECT SITE AA 444444444444 44444444 2. Project Description Caltrans Aeronautics conducted a preliminary review of the City-approvedhelistop, and determined that the single flight pathis 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, includingan 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 westof 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 IVof the project, after completion of the MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings and the associated parking facilities, the helistop would be relocated tothe roofof 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 compliancewith 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 2-11 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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. HelistopDesigns 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 Figure 2-5 and take off. As shown on , 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 TLOFareatoensure that objects remain out of the TLOF andFATO 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 legendswould be painted within the red circle, including “TVH,” the abbreviation for the Temecula Valley Hospital, and “PVT,” which denotes private use, as the helistopwould 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 surfacesfor the interim location. Theinterim helistop would be connectedto 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. 2-12 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 Figure 2-6 As shown in , 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. 2-13 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 usethe helistop to transport patients. 2-14 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 2. Project Description 2.5Discretionary Approvals The Major Modification for the helistop relocation involves discretionary approvals fromthe City of Temecula, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, FAA, and Riverside County ALUC. The anticipated actions and approvalsrelated to the proposed project are listed below. AgencyAction City of Temecula Development Plan Major Modification including design and site review. City of Temecula CUP Major Modification for proposed interim and permanent helistopsand storage building. City of Temecula City Council approval of project and certification of SEIR. State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Review and issuance of construction permits for Development (OSHPD) windcone lighting, 3-color helistop beacon, and red obstruction lights for the proposed interim locationhave occurred. Full OSHPD review and approval for the future hospital tower and permanent helistop locationwould 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 Regulationswas issued for the interim helistop on July 3, 2013and 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 withthe 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-siteinspections 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. 2-17 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 2. Project Description 2.6Cumulative Projects Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelinesrequires 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 GuidelinesSection 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 Guidelinesstates 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 GuidelinesSection 15130(a)(3) and 15130(b)(5)). According to Section15130 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 Section15130 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 referencedand 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 acumulative impact depends on both geographic location andproject schedule. The proposed project area is located in the southern portion of the Cityof 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 proposedproject in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. 2-18 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 2. Project Description Table 2-1 lists current and proposed projects that could potentially contribute to cumulative Figure 2-7 impacts within the project area.Locations of cumulative projects are shown in , Cumulative Projects. TABLE 2-1 PLANNED AND APPROVEDPROJECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA Figure No. Planning Development ReferenceJurisdictionTypeDescriptionStatus 1 City of TemeculaResidentialA Tentative Tract Map application to create 7 single-Proposed family residential lots located approximately 15,000 feet southof Santiago Road and east of Ynez Road. 2 City of TemeculaInstitutionalA Major Modification application for the UHS Temecula Phase I Regional Hospital to modify the phasing of the project, Complete reducing the bed count from 178 to 140 in phase one and (140 beds) 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. 3 City of TemeculaOfficeA Development Plan application to allow for the Under construction of three office buildings totaling 37,926 Construction square feet within PDO-8 located at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Margarita Road. 4 City of TemeculaCommercial/Redevelopment of the existing 305-acre site into a Resort Proposed ResidentialCommunity 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. 5 City of TemeculaResidentialA Development Plan to construct 74 single family homes Under on a condominium at the southeast corner of Peach Tree Construction Street and Deer Hollow Way. 6 City of TemeculaResidentialSpecific Plan by Ambient Communities referred to as Proposed "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. 7 City of TemeculaCommercialA Development Plan to construct a 4,700 square foot Approved Navy Federal Credit Union building with three drive-thru lanes located approximately 150 feet south of Temecula Parkway, on the west side of Jedediah Smith Road. 2-19 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 2. Project Description Figure No. Planning Development ReferenceJurisdictionTypeDescriptionStatus 8 City of TemeculaCommercialADevelopment Plan for the construction of two structures Complete 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. 9 City of TemeculaCommercialA Development Plan to construct a two-story, 11,982 Under square foot medical office building on a 0.92 acre vacant Construction lot located at the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora. 10 City of TemeculaCommercialA Development Plan to construct a 29,211 square foot, Under two-story professional office building located on the west Construction side of Avenida de Missiones, approximately 200 feet south of Temecula Parkway. 11 City of TemeculaResidentialA Multi-family residential Development Plan to construct Complete the 288 apartment units at the northwest corner of Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway. 12 City of TemeculaResidentialA Development Plan to construct 186 single-family Developed attached units (90 rowhome units and 96 motorcourt and units) at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Operating Meadows Parkway. 13 City of TemeculaResidentialA Development Plan to construct a 140 unit attached Under residential project, including two story townhomes and Construction three story walk-up flats, also with a pool and clubhouse for project residents, located on approximately 7 acres at the southernmost point of Pujol Street, on the west side of the street. 14 City of TemeculaResidentialA Tentative Tract Map revision for 59 detached Approved condominium units located at the northeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Road. 15 City of TemeculaCommercialA Major Modification to Development Plan to construct a Developed one-story, 12,554 square foot outpatient surgery center and building on a 1.01 acre vacant lot located at the northeast Operating corner of Temecula Parkway and Rancho Pueblo Road. SOURCE: City of Temecula Planning Department, 2016. 2-20 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 M E P K CHAPTER 3 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Through preparation of anInitial 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 impactedto 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. 3.1Aesthetics 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 Hospitalsite 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 1,147feet 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 providesviews 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 andMargaritaRoad, 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 3.1-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics the interim helistop site to the nearest residential property line is approximately 225feet, and the distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest residential unit (the Madera Vista apartments) is approximately 305feet. 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 Cityof 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. 3.1-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 Thisaesthetics analysisis 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 compatibilitybetweenproposed project elements and the existing surroundings; and (3) proposed project conformance with policies and regulations. In addition, nighttime lighting impacts would be significant if lightsubstantiallyinterferes 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 substantiallight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As determinedin 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-diameterinterim helistopin 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 3.1-3 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 wouldrequire installation of lighting fixturesfor nighttime operations.In addition to the existing red obstruction lights onparking lot light standards, red obstruction lights,athree-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 andfive 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 helistoplighting 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 thehave 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 onthe sides of the aircraft and anti-collisionlights 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 tothe 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 islikely 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 TLOFlightingthat 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 3.1-4 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 305feet.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 helistopdeck surface. The lighting used to safely transport patients to and from the helistop locations would also be intermittent and would be activated after thehelicopter has landed and turned offbefore its departure. This lighting would be directed to thespecific areas wheresafe 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 helistoplightingwhich 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 helistopmay 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 helistopperimeter 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 3.1-5 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 helistoplocations, lighting for the proposed storage building would be installed in compliance with theCity’s Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655, which requires illumination levels onto adjacent property linesbe 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 nighttimesky and ontoadjacent 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 areathat 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 ofthe limited and temporary source of potential glare from implementationof 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 3.1-6 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 significantimpact related to lighting and glare.Cumulative impacts are less than significant. Significance Determination : Less than significant 3.1-7 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2Hazards This section describes the potential adverse impacts on public safetyand 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 facilitiesis followed by an analysis of potential impacts. 3.2.1Environmental Setting Existing Conditions The hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently being used for operation of Phase1 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 helistopthat was approved by the City with the hospital projectis notyetdeveloped.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 inthe Regulatory Setting section,the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 21 Section 3527(g) statesthat 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 monthwith patients onboardover 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 islocated approximately 6.6 miles northwest from the project site. The project site lies far outside of theFrench Valley Airport compatibility zones and airport influence area, and is not within theairport’s traffic pattern. The land uses in the vicinity of the hospital include: Single-family residences and an equestriantrail 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 3.2-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards 3.2.2Regulatory Setting Federal Aviation Administration The Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)is the federalagency that establishes standards for the design of thehelistop, and the rules for pilot and helicopter operations.The FAA’s primary responsibility is to determine what,ifany,effect the landing and taking off of helicopters would have on the air trafficand related safety hazardsin the vicinity of theprojectsite. FAA Advisory Circular –(AC)150/5390/2C, “Heliport Design” provides the standards used todesign heliports in the United States. This includes defining acceptable approach,landing, takeoff, and safety areasthat must be maintained clear ofobstructions. 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 (Figures4-1,4-2,and 4-5;pages 110–111, and 117of 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 behigh 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, topreventand minimizeany 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: 3.2-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 airspacedetermination letter for the existing site on March 15, 2012,and a separate airspace determination letter for the interim helistop on July 3, 2013. FederalRegulation 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for objectsaffecting navigable airspace. This notification serves as the basis for: Evaluating the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on operatingprocedures Determining the potential hazardous effect of the proposed construction on airnavigation 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 navigableairspace. The regulations identify three- dimensional imaginary surfaces through which no object should penetrate.Section 77.29 (Airport Imaginary Surfaces forHeliports) establishes this “imaginary surface” as (a) a primary surface defined as the designatedtakeoff and landing area of a heliport; (b) an approach surface that begins at each end of theprimary surface and extends outward and upward for 4,000 feet, extending at a 8:1, and (c) atransitional surface that extends outward and upward from the primary surface and from theapproach surfaces at a slope of 2:1for a distance of 250 feet. An object that would beconstructed or altered within the imaginary surface area of the heliport would be subjectto the FAA requirements.Technically, FAR Part 77 applies only to “public use” airports and heliports. However, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics appliesthe 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 reviewsall the documentation and approvals submittedfrom the local government agencies and the FAAto makethe 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). 3.2-3 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards California Code of Regulations,Title 21 Sections 3525 through 3560 provides rules, regulations, and permit requirements related to the proposed helistop that incorporate most of the FAA regulations, including: design standards, lighting standards, visual standards, obstruction standards. All of the standards and regulations contained withinCCR, 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, andPublic 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 ServicesHelicopter 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 EMShelicopter landing siteis not astate permitted helistopbased on the FAA’s Heliport Design Guide, which provides criteria contained to ensure an acceptablelevel of safety for a hospital helistop.The level of safety of each EMS helicopter landingthat 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). 3.2-4 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Riverside County Airport Land UseCompatibility Plan The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is responsible for reviewing projects near airports or related to air facility to make sure they are consistent with approved compatibility plans. To provide guidance for land use recommendations, an airport land use compatibility plan was developed to promote compatibility between air facilities and the land uses that surround them. The plan includes policies by which the ALUC operates and conducts compatibility reviews of proposed development actions; describes the overall context of airport land use compatibility planning in general and for airports in Riverside County in particular; and the procedures that the ALUC wouldfollow in making compatibility determinations. The proposed helistop project wasreviewed 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 airportor 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. 3.2.3Impact 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 policiesofthe Riverside County ALUCPthat are related to implementation ofthe 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 hazardsif it would: 3.2-5 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. For a project located within an airport land useplan 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 determinedin 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 developmentnear the project siteand would include construction and operation of a new single-story 5,000 square foot storage building. Theproposedproject 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.Anaverage of eight helicopter operationsare anticipated tooccur per month (four departures and four arrivals),although actual frequency would depend on medicalneeds.The proposed storage building would be located at the previously City-approved helistop location in the eastern portion of the project site. 3.2-6 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards The proposed locations of both the interim and permanent helistops and the storage building are shown on Figures2-3 and 2-4(Chapter 2,Project Description). The proposed flight paths would route incoming flights from theeast and departing flights would leave the helistopheading west, andhave been designed to avoid the existing fivestory hospital building, trees,light poles, and - utility lines. In addition,the proposed flight paths considerthepredominant wind directionand avoid low altitude flying over residential areas.In addition, the proposed 5,000-square-foot storage building would be22feet high (which is lower than the main hospital building) and located outside of the two proposed flight pathsfor the interim helistop,and would not interfere with incoming or departing flights. The proposed flight paths were designed to be consistent withtheFAA Helistop design standards that are specified in Chapter 4 of the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2Cthat ensure sufficient airspaceobstruction clearance.In addition, the flight paths are consistent with theFederal 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 flightpaths are designedtomeet FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance standardsthat specifya 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).Perthese FAA and Caltransdesign requirements,the proposed flight pathsareapproximately aligned with the prevailing wind and extend out from the edge of the helistopfor 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 evaluatethe effects the proposed helistopwould have onthesafety of persons or propertyon the groundand existing and proposed objectsthat extend intotheairspace. Prior to providing an airspace determination letterfromthe FAAand a helistop permit from Caltrans Aeronautics, both agencieswould determine that the proposed helistop locationswould not adversely affect the safe and efficient useof the navigable airspace by aircraft, and would not result in safety effects to persons or property on the ground. An airspace determination letterfrom the FAA and a permit from Caltrans Aeronautics wouldbe required priorto construction or operation of the proposed helistoplocations.In addition, the proposed project wasreviewed by the Riverside County ALUCon 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 theseagencies 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 3.2-7 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards 3.2.4Cumulative Impacts Hazardrelated impacts typically occur in a local or site-specific context versus a cumulative context combined with other development projects; although it is possible for combined effects of hazards to occurby adjacent cumulative developmentthat involves hazardous risks.Several projects shown in Figure 2-7are 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, nonewould 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 limitedincrease in air trafficin 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 conditionsand provide safety measuressuch 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 bythe proposed project would ensure that the project’s contribution to hazardsimpactswould be less than cumulatively considerable.Therefore, the effect of the heliport project in combination with thecumulative development in theproject vicinity would not result in cumulatively considerable impact related to thesafety of people residing or working in the project area. Hence, cumulative impactswould be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant 3.2-8 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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. 3.3.1Environmental 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 valuesAmount added to higher value 0 or 13 2 or 32 4 to 91 10 or more0 SOURCE: United States Department of Labor OSHA, 2014. 3.3-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 Figure 3.3-1 A-weighted noise levels are shown in . 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: L: The L, or equivalent sound level, is used to describe noise over a specified period of time in eqeq terms ofa single numerical value; the Lof a time-varying signal and that of a steady eq signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The L eq may also be referred to as the average sound level. L: The maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. max L: The minimum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. min L: The noise level exceeded X% of a specified time period. For instance, L and L x5090 represent the noise levels that are exceeded 50 percent and 90 percent of the time, respectively. L: Also termed the DNL, the Lis the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, dndn 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 3.3-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 130652 Effects of Noise on People Figure 3.3-1 . Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. Quiet Suburban Nighttime Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft. Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. Quiet Urban Nighttime COMMON OUTDOOR Quiet Rural Nighttime Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. Noisy Urban Daytime Quiet Urban Daytime NOISE LEVELS Commercial Area Conference Room (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Inside Subway Train (New York) Concert Hall (Background) Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Dishwasher Next Room Large Business Office Food Blender at 3 Ft. Threshold of Hearing Small Theater, Large COMMON INDOOR NOISE LEVELS Shouting at 3 Ft. Rock Band Library 100 110 908070605040302010 (dBA, Leq) 0 LEVEL NOISE 4 Times As Loud Twice As Loud REFERENCE 1/2 As Loud1/4 As Loud PUBLIC REACTION LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE LETTERS OF PROTEST COMPLAINTS LIKELY COMPLAINTS RARE ACCEPTANCE SOURCE: ESA 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 CNELmetric, which as described above, provides additional weightingsfor 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 ofthe exposed population is awakened. Per the 2008 FICAN report, the exposed population has less than a5 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 toresult 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). 3.3-4 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 3dB 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 soundsfrom 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 smallerfrequency 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 tosudden 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, 3.3-5 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 2000). The response varies with the horse, the rider, the terrain, and other conditions (USAF, 2000). Horses can become gradually conditioned tovarious noises over time (Heffner, 2000). The U.S.AirForce has evidence that horses typically adapt to flyovers over a month’s time (USAF, 2000). Also, horsesridden 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 farmingactivities (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 arethose 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 astraffic 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 residencesand an equestriantrailto the north and northwest Single-family residences andcommercial 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 channelto the east and northeast 3.3-6 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise Existing Ambient Noise Levels Table 3.3-1, The ambient noise environment on and nearby the hospital site are shown on which Figure 3.3-2 provides the measured noiseat five representative locations (shown in ). TABLE 3.3-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Location Measurement Measured Average AMBIENT NumberLocation DescriptionPeriodNoise Level, dB CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road24 hours45.1–61.259.6 2 30955 De Portola Road24 hours45.8–63.258.9 3 31775 De Portola Road24 hours50.1–61.763.5 4 On project site, at offset of 20 minutes57.9N/A proposed five-story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent 24 hours64.2–76.578.7 to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient samples were collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014. All instrumentation meetsthe requirements of the American National Standards InstituteS1.4-1971. 3.3.2Regulatory 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 3.3-7 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 44 44 Site 2 Site 3 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 PROJECTPROJECT 44 44 AA SITESITE Site 4 Site 1 AA 44 44 44 44 Site 5 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 79 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations 01000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Figure 3.3-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 (emphasisadded 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 Table 3.3-2 guidelines for land use and noise exposure compatibility are shown in . 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-rangegeneral 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. 3.3-9 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise TABLE 3.3-2 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (LdnOR CNEL) NormallyConditionallyNormallyClearly abcd Land UseAcceptableAcceptableUnacceptableUnacceptable Single-family, Duplex, Mobile Homes50- 6055- 7070- 75above 75 Multi-family Homes50- 6560- 7070- 75above 75 Schools, Libraries, Churches, 50- 7060- 7070- 80above 80 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels50- 6560- 7070- 80above 75 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, ---50- 70---above 70 Amphitheaters Sports Arena, ---50- 75---above 75 Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks50- 70---67- 75above 75 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, 50- 75---70- 80above80 WaterRecreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business and 50- 7067- 77above 75--- Professional Commercial Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, 50- 7570- 80above 75--- Agriculture 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 constructionor 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 Table 3.3-3 noise/land use compatibility guidelines are shown in . 3.3-10 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise TABLE 3.3-3 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dB) NormallyConditionallyNormallyClearly abcd Land UseAcceptableAcceptableUnacceptableUnacceptable e 50- 6060- 7070- 75above 75 Residential Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotel50- 6060- 7070- 80above 80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, 50- 6060- 7070- 80above 80 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, ---50- 70---above 70 f Amphitheaters Sports Arena, ---50- 75---above 75 f Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Parks50- 70 ---70- 75above 75 Golf Course, Riding Stables, 50- 70---70- 80above 80 WaterRecreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business 50- 6565- 75above 75--- Commercial, and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, 50- 7070- 80above 80--- Agriculture Agricultureabove 50 a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactorybased onthe 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. Ifitdoes 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 ElementTable 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. 3.3-11 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 sensitiveland 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. 3.3-12 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 Tables 3.3-4 3.3-5 forth in and . 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 (72hours) in advance of the scheduled and permitted activity and shall be accompanied by the appropriate inspection fee(s). The application is subject to approval by the City Manager or designated representative. No public hearing is required. 3.3-13 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise TABLE 3.3-4 CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE LAND USE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS Property Receiving NoiseMaximum Noise Level(dBLmax) Type of UseLand Use DesignationInteriorExterior ResidentialHillside Rural 4565 Very Low Low Low Medium 1 Medium4565/70 1 High4570 Commercial and OfficeNeighborhood Community —70 Highway Tourist Service Professional Office5070 Light IndustrialIndustrial Park5575 Public/InstitutionalSchools5065 All others5070 Open SpaceVineyards/Agriculture—70 2 Open Space—70/65 1 Maximum exterior noise levels of70 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. 3.3-14 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise TABLE 3.3-5 CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Noise Exposure (dBLmax) Land Use 556065707580 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. 3.3-15 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 3.3.3Impact 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 identifiesthe followingthree 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. 3.3-16 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 isallowed 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 operationswouldconstitute asignificant impact if the project would result in an exceedance of the City’s allowableexterior noise levels. The City Municipal Code Section 9.20.040, General Sound Level Standards, provide maximum noise standards that are generalin 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, isextremely conservativebecause 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 relativeto aircraft noise, and determined that the population exposed to two indoor noise events of 78 dB ina 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 levelof 78 dB would be significant,asthis is the sound level at which helicopter noise would begin to substantiallyaffect 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 thaton 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. 3.3-17 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 Table3.3-9) were selected based on their relationship to the proposed interim and proposed helistophelistop sites. Because helicopter noise at sensitive receptors that are closer to the would be greater due to the proximity of helicopters descending to land at and ascending to departfrom helistop, the 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 greatestanticipated 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 Figures 3.3-3 locations are listed in Table 3.3-9, and the proposed flight paths are shown in 3.3-6 through. Helicopter Operations and Fleet I t is anticipated that two localEmergency Medical Services (EMS) helicopter operators, Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services, would use the helistopto transport patients approximately eight times (fourarrivaloperationsand 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 AirbusHelicopter’sEC135, 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 reducesa 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 a10dBpenalty 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 . 3.3-18 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise TABLE 3.3-6 HELICOPTER OPERATIONTIMES OF DAY (CNEL) DaytimeEveningNighttime INM Helicopter (7:00:00 a.m. – (7:00:00 p.m. – (10:00:00 p.m. – Type6:59:59 p.m.) 9:59:59 p.m.) 6:59:59 a.m.) Total 10.0%10.0%100.0% EC-13080.0% 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 degreesto the Figure 3.3-3 interim helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 33 degrees. 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 theinterim helistop, while departures would fly a true Figure 3.3-4 heading of 228 degrees. 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 Figure 3.3-5 degrees. 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 3.3-19 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 Site 8 Site 6B Site 3 Site 2 Site 6A Site 7 Site 1 PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE Site 6C Interim Helistop Site 5 79 Site 9 Site Locations Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 01000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Figure 3.3-3 Interim Helistop – North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions Site 8 Site 6B Site 3 Site 2 Site 6A Site 7 Site 1 PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE Site 6C Interim Helistop Site 5 79 Site 9 Site Locations Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 01000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Figure 3.3-4 Interim Helistop – South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions Site 8 Site 6B Site 3 Site 2 Site 6A Site 1 Site 7 PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE Site 6C Permanent Helistop Site 5 79 Site 9 Site Locations Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 01000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Figure 3.3-5 Permanent Helistop – North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise (in prevailing wind conditions), arrivals would fly a true heading of 49 degrees to the permanent Figure 3.3-6 helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 229 degrees. depicts the permanent helistop south-flow flight corridors that would primarily be used in prevailing wind Tables 3.3-7 conditions. Flight corridor use percentages areanticipated to occur asshown in and 3.3-8 . TABLE 3.3-7 EC-130 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES – INTERIM LOCATION DeparturesArrivals CorridorDayEveningNightCorridorDayEveningNight 10.0%10.0%10.0%90.0%90.0%90.0% DNEPANEP 90.0%90.0%90.0%10.0%10.0%10.0% DSWPASWP 100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% Total SOURCE: Heliplanners, 2013 TABLE 3.3-8 EC-130 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES – PERMANENT LOCATION DeparturesArrivals CorridorDayEveningNightCorridorDayEveningNight 10.0%10.0%10.0%90.0%90.0%90.0% DNEPANEP 90.0%90.0%90.0%10.0%10.0%10.0% DSWPASWP 100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% TotalTotal SOURCE: Heliplanners, 2013 3.3-23 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 Site 8 Site 3 Site 6B Site 2 Site 6A Site 1 PROJECTPROJECT Site 7 SITESITE Site 6C Permanent Helistop Site 5 79 Site 9 Site Locations Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 01000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Figure 3.3-6 Permanent Helistop – South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 asubstantialpermanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Cause asubstantial 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 noiseimpacts 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 andnoise 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 werepreviously 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. 3.3-25 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise Helicopter Noise CNEL Noise Standardsand Impacts The proposed interim helistop would be located on a mound/berm that would be approximately 5.5 feet above ground level on the westernside of the hospital property at an elevation of 1,060feet 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 Figures 3.3-73.3-8 and are shown in and .The CNELcontours 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 interimhelistop 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 themaximum CNEL considered normally acceptable fordevelopment of new single- familyresidential 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 65dB CNEL as the maximum allowable noise exposure level. 3.3-26 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE Interim Helistop 79 CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0500 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA Figure 3.3-7 Interim Helistop – CNEL Contours PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE Permanent Helistop 79 CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0500 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA Figure 3.3-8 Permanent Helistop – CNEL Contours 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 dBCNEL 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 Standardsand Impacts The City of Temecula Municipal Code identifies noise standards as 65dB 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 3.3-9shows the single-event (Lmax, the maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during agiven period of time)noise levels thatwould 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 WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds)(Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Departure Arrival Departure Arrival Site Site Description/ Lmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dB NumberAddress 160.952.0 52.065.6 30390 De Portola Road 230955 De Portola Road73.385.0 85.574.5 adjacent to portion of Equestrian Trail 359.682.7 77.859.6 31775 De Portola Road 531602 Calle Los Padres 73.273.2 72.875.6 (adjacent to Highway 79) 93.4 100.8 6ADirect Overflight of 76.377.6 Equestrian Trail 6BEquestrian Trail 67.983.590.868.5 Location B 6CEquestrian Trail 81.081.081.085.2 Location C 762.976.971.962.8 Madera Vista 849.780.670.249.6 43941 Via Montalban 975.757.257.283.7 David Ln / Kevin Pl NOTE: Receptor receiving the greatest noisein each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. 3.3-29 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise The duration of the maximum single-event noiselisted in Table 3.3-9 would be limited, occurring approximately eight times per month (four departureoperationsand 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 noiselevels(Lmax) that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the permanent helistop that would be locatedon the roof of the future hospital tower, which would be developedin Phase IVof 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 9of the 10receptor sites andwouldresult in a maximum noise level of 89.8dB Lmax at Site 7,theMadera Vistaapartments.InSanta Ana wind conditions,the exterior short-term noise standard would also be exceeded at 9of the 10 receptor sites and result in a maximum noise level of 87.8dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. TABLE 3.3-10 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE PERMANENT HELISTOP WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds)(Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Site Departure Arrival Departure Arrival NumberSite Description/ AddressLmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dB 158.848.648.663.6 30390 De Portola Road 271.771.771.773.8 30955 De Portola Road 369.982.282.470.9 31775 De Portola Road 82.184.3 531602 Calle Los Padres 67.467.5 (adjacent to Highway 79) 6A75.175.175.177.5 Equestrian Trail Location A 6B69.869.769.871.0 Equestrian Trail Location B 6C71.967.167.176.3 Equestrian Trail Location C 89.887.8 779.680.5 Madera Vista 853.373.871.853.7 43941 Via Montalban 970.354.154.178.4 David Ln / Kevin Pl NOTE: Receptor receiving the greatest noisein each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. 3.3-30 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 helistopwould 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 ofthisnoise 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 9outof the 10receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Therefore,the noise fromhelicopter operations from use of both the proposed interim and permanent helistops would exceed the exteriornoiselimits 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), andflights 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 ofnonhazardous 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 ALUCPidentifies 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 CNELincrease of 5 dB or more is deemed significant; for locations having an existing ambient noise level between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, a CNELincrease of 3 dB or more is deemed significant; and for locations having an existing ambient noise level of more than 60 dB CNEL, a CNELincrease of 1.5dB or more is deemed significant. 3.3-31 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 thereceptor siteswould 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 Tables3.3-11 3.3-12 and , Sites 1 and 2 did not experience an increase of 3 dBCNEL, 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 NOISEAND CNEL NOISE WITHTHE INTERIM SITE Difference Between Ambient and Combined Ambient and Combined Helicopter Helicopter Site Description/ AMBIENT Helicopter Site NumberAddressCNEL, dB CNEL, dBCNEL, dBCNEL, dB 1 26.959.60.0 30390 De Portola Road59.6 2 46.659.1+0.2 30955 De Portola Road58.9 3 38.763.50.0 31775 De Portola Road63.5 4 On project site, at offset of N/AN/AN/AN/A proposed five-story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 78.747.278.70.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. TABLE 3.3-12 EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE AND CNEL NOISE WITHTHE PERMANENT SITE Difference Combined Between Ambient and Ambient and Site Site Description/ AMBIENT Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter NumberAddressCNEL, dB CNEL, dBCNEL, dBCNEL, dB 1 24.059.6 0.0 30390 De Portola Road59.6 2 44.259.0+0.1 30955 De Portola Road58.9 3 43.963.50.0 31775 De Portola Road63.5 N/AN/AN/AN/A 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 78.741.378.70.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. 3.3-32 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise Table 3.3-13 In addition, the helicopter-generated CNEL at Sites 6A through 9 (as listed in ) 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 CNELNOISE FOR SITES 6 THOUGH 9 Helicopter CNEL, Helicopter CNEL, Site dB for dB for NumberSite Description/ AddressInterim SitePermanentSite 6A*50.847.4 Equestrian Trail Location A 6B*42.642.2 Equestrian Trail Location B 6C*53.540.3 Equestrian Trail Location C 7 37.753.3 Madera Vista 8 37.032.8 43941 Via Montalban 9 35.131.6 David Ln / Kevin Pl 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 maximumhelicopter noise would be limited and occur as helicopters arrive anddepart the proposed helistops, which would occur approximatelyeight times a month (four departure operations and four arrival operations). As describedpreviously 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. 3.3-33 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise In prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital), the periodic noise generated by helicopter flightsto and from the interim helistop would result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noiseat 9of the 10 receptor sites, and would result in a maximum noise level of 93.4 dB Lmaxat 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 inprevailing wind conditions would also result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise at 9of the 10 receptor sites, and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vistaapartments.InSanta Ana wind conditions, the proposed permanent helistop would also result in a substantial short-termincrease in ambient noise at 9 of the 10 receptor sites, and would and result in a maximum noise level of 87.8dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vistaapartments. 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 sleepof residents.In addition, based on the anticipated helicopter use (shown in Table 3.3-6), an average ofone 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 determineareas exposed to a heightened degree of potential for sleep disturbance during nighttime helicopter operations. 3.3-34 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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. Aspreviously 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 activityto 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 toPUCSection 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 ofnoise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospitaltoreduce helicopter noise. Therefore, impacts related to substantialperiodic increases in ambient noise levelsfrom helicopter overflights are significant and unavoidable. MitigationMeasure NOI-1: Prior to issuance of a City permitthat allows helicopter operations at the interim helistop; the Temecula Valley Hospital shall prepare and implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures: 3.3-35 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise Prior to helicopter operations, Temecula Valley Hospital shalldevelop 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 adeviation 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 deviationshall 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. 3.3.4Cumulative 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 cumulativeconstruction 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. 3.3-36 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3Noise 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 timewithin the same geographic areabecause ambulances would only use theirsirens 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 locationswould be significant and unavoidable. As described above, feasible mitigation has been requiredto mitigate noise impacts to the extent practicable. However, flightrelated 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 impactsfrom helicopter operations are significant and unavoidable. Significance Determination :Significant and Unavoidable. 3.3-37 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 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 itevaluates a No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, a No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative, an AlternativeInterim Helistop SiteAlternative, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative, and the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop SiteAlternative. 4.1Introduction This chapter addresses alternatives to the proposed project and describes the rationale for their evaluation in this Recirculated DraftSEIR(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 GuidelinesSection 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 reasonableperiod 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 planconsistency;other plans and regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access 4-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 Guidelinesto 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)). 4.2Significant and Unavoidable Impacts As described inthe analysis in Chapter 3, although medical helicopter noise is exemptfrom 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 Lmaxat Site 6A, the equestrian trail. The proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior noise standard at 9of 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 4-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives imposed; however, flight restrictivemitigation 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 Analyzedand 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 alternativein 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 4-3 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 BuildingSites or Future Building Sites as Interim Helistop Site Alternative Alternatives to use either the planned Medical Office Building (MOB) sites or futurebuilding 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 locationsisinfeasible 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 andcannot 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 a325- 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 fromthe 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 developedadjacent to the MOB 1 site. Thus, the MOB 2 location would not be available for 4-4 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives use after Phase II. In addition, there are constraints to utilizing the MOB 2 site for the helistop. Because ofthe 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 requiredto 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. FutureBuilding Sites The future building and infrastructure locations that are part of the approved hospital campus facilities arenot available for the interim helistop location. In addition, none of theselocations would avoid or substantially lessenthe 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 ofwater-quality infrastructure at the southeast corner of the hospital sitethat includes an infiltration storm chamber system toreceive drainage from a majority of the site. The backbone of the drainage system is installed and hasa 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-sitestormwaterto theinfiltration 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 helistopfacility. In addition, because ofthe 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 agenciesto 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. 4-5 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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-sitelocation 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 driversdistracted by helicopter operations. Also, helicopter activity from this location would pose airspace obstruction-clearance conflicts with the power lines; and thereforewould 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 lessenthe significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur by the proposed project, as all on-site helistop locations would result in a significant and unavoidable impactrelated 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 isalso a future building site that islocated 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 helistopsites. Asa 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 4-6 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 avoidedor 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 PortolaRoad. 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 lessenthe 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 toand 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 projectare 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. 4-7 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 requireready 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 helistopfacilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhancedaccessibility to state-of- the art medical proceduresat other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop sitewould 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 assistwith efficient daily operations of the hospital. It isdesigned 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 Section15126.6(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.” 4-8 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 onlyflight 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 magneticflight corridor) and crossesover 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-coveredhelistop location that is locatednear 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 notinstall 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 4-9 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives proposed project. However, both the No Project/Existing Condition Alternativeand the proposed project would result in less-than-significantimpacts 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 Alternativethese 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 providedto 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 helistopin this location be elevated 14feet 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 usesthe City-approved helistop location as an EMS landing site, which does not implement any of these features thatare designed toreduce 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 windsat 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-sitehelistop 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 ordirectional lights to follow during incoming helicopter flights.Therefore, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternativeresults 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 helistopsafety 4-10 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 usethe ground surface at the City-approved helistop location, which is approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. Figure 4-1 As shown in , 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 (bothinterim 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 dBCNEL,and if locations with existing ambient noise Table 4-1 levels of more than 60 dB CNEL have an increase of 1.5 dB CNEL. As shown in, 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. 4-11 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 Approved Helistop PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE 79 CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0500 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA Figure 4-1 NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure City Approved Helistop – CNEL Contours from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non-aircraft sources. 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-1 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL MEASUREMENTS AND HELICOPTER CNEL NOISEFROM THE CITY-APPROVED SITE Combined Difference AmbientAmbient and Between Ambient Site Measurement CNEL, Helicopter Helicopter and Combined NumberSite Description/ AddressPerioddB CNEL, dBCNEL, dBCNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road24 hours59.625.859.60.0 2 30955 De Portola Road24hours58.946.959.2+0.3 3 31775 De Portola Road24 hours63.547.563.6+0.1 20 minutesN/AN/AN/AN/A 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours78.734.578.70.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by Environmental Science Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014. A 24-hour noise measurement was not obtained at Site 4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for the equipment. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1971. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. As shownin Table 4-1, Sites 1 and 2 would not experience an increase of 3 dBCNEL, nor would Sites 3 or 5 experience an increase of 1.5 dBCNEL. 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, whichsets 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 ina substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels andimpacts 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 useboth the ground surface at the City-approved helistop location and the one original flight path (shown in Figure 2-4) thatcrosses over the Madera Vista Table 4-2 apartment buildings both to and from the helistop. 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). 4-13 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-2 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FROM THE NO PROJECT/EXISTING CONDITION ALTERNATIVE Helicopter Arrival Helicopter Departure Site No.Site LocationLmax, dBLmax, dB 1 48.4 48.5 30390 De Portola 2 75.5 74.1 30955 De Portola 3 76.4 74.6 31775 De Portola 5 62.5 60.5 31602 Calle Los Padres 6A77.175.7 Equestrian Trail 6B75.075.0 Equestrian Trail Overflight 6C65.364.2 Equestrian Trail 7 94.096.0 Madera Vista 8 57.455.1 43941 Via Montalban 9 51.851.1 David Ln / Kevin Pl NOTE: Receptor receiving the greatest noise from arrivals and departuresis indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Level of Noise Impact: As described in the Section 3.3, Noise, significant impacts related to ashort- term increase in noise from helicopter operations would occur if the project results inan 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 resultfrom 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 inSanta 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 Alternativeis 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 4-14 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 4.2also shows that the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result inhelicopter overflight noise that would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 6of the 10receptor sites during arrivals, and at 5 of the 10 receptor sites during departures. In comparison, the proposed interim helistopwould exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9of 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 9of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, compared to the proposed project, thehelicopter 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 6impacted receptor sitesduring 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 Alternativebecause 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 wouldbe impactedmore 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 fromthe proposed project. Conclusion The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project’s less-than-significantimpactsbecause the helistop facility would not be developed and helistop lighting would not be installed. However, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result ingreater impacts related to hazards andsimilar or potentially greater impacts related tonoise than the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable noise impacts would not be reduced under this alternative, and 4-15 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 Temeculabecause 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 variedflight 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-ApprovedHelistopAlternative The No Project/City-Approved HelistopAlternative 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 wouldinclude 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 clearancecriteria 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 magneticflight corridor), and a second flight path (true heading of 285 degrees/272 degrees magnetic, which was listed as a condition inthe FAA’s airspace determination letter) that would travel both to and from the helistop over the Los Ranchitos single-family Figures 4-2 4-3 residential areas north of the project site. These flight paths are shown in and. 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. 4-16 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 Site 8 Site 6B Approved Helistop Site 3 Site 2 Site 6A Site 1 PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE Site 7 Site 6C Site 5 79 Site 9 Site Locations Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 01000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Figure 4-2 City Approved Helistop – East-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions Site 8 Approved Helistop Site 6B Site 3 Site 2 Site 6A PROJECTPROJECT Site 1 Site 7 SITESITE Site 6C Site 5 79 Site 9 Site Locations Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 01000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Figure 4-3 City Approved Helistop – West-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions 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’sless-than-significantaesthetic 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 4-19 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 FAAhas issued newregulations 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 currentCity-approved flight path, Caltrans Aeronautics Division requiresTemecula Valley Hospitaltoeither 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, totrim 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 helistopand the phased development of theother hospital facilities would continue. The approved and proposed construction activities are within the same portions of the project site, just the locationsof the facilities have changedand 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 onea 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, asshown 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 4-20 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 describedpreviously, 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 noisefor both alternatives.As shown inTable 4-1, Sites 1 and 2 would not experience a CNEL increase of 3 dB, nor would Sites 3 or 5 experience a CNELincrease 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 Alternativewould 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 fromthe 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 Alternativeis very limited in length and frequency, occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights). However, asshown 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 Table 4-3 hospital property and the planned equestrian trail. 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 Lmaxin 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 HelistopAlternativeis 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. 4-21 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-3 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS – NO PROJECT/CITY-APPROVED HELISTOPALTERNATIVE WEST FLOWEAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds)(Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter SiteDeparture Arrival Departure Arrival No.Site LocationLmax,dBLmax, dBLmax,dBLmax, dB 1 64.448.4 48.566.4 30390 De Portola 2 85.775.5 74.184.9 30955 De Portola 3 74.476.4 74.675.9 31775 De Portola 5 60.562.5 60.561.8 31602 Calle Los Padres 6A79.677.175.780.5 Equestrian Trail 6B93.675.075.093.6 Equestrian Trail Overflight 6C70.465.364.271.8 Equestrian Trail 7 77.294.096.077.1 Madera Vista 8 55.157.455.155.9 43941 Via Montalban 9 55.951.851.158.5 David Ln / Kevin Pl NOTE: Receptors receiving the greatestnoise ineach 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 and7 of the 10 receptor sites inSanta 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 4-22 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 fromthe proposed project.Although, receptor sites 6Band 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 flyover the Los Ranchitos single- family residential areas north of the hospital site, which would directly expose the area to helicopter noisethat 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 Alternativewould 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 andwould 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 alternativewouldalsogenerate 4.2 dB Lmax greater noise in prevailing wind conditions, and 8.2dBLmax less noisein Santa Ana wind conditionsin comparison to the proposed permanent helistop.Therefore, for a majority of helicopter operations, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternativewould result in greater single-event noise than the proposed project. However, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternativewould 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 thehelicopter overflight noise would result in greater single event noise thanthe 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 dBLmax noise generated from helicopter operation under this alternative wouldresult in a maximum noise level at receptors of4.8 dB Lmax less than the maximum single-event noise that would occur under the proposed project (100.8dBLmax),the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternativewould result insimilar or slightly reducedsingle-event noise impactscompared tothe 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 Alternativewould be substantially louder than both the City’s 4-23 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levelsand would directly impact residential areas by helicopter overflight. Conclusion The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternativewould result in greater impacts than the proposed project’s less-than-significantimpactsrelated to aesthetics andhazards, and similar or slightly reduced noise impacts that would continue tobe significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternativeis 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 objectivesof 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. 4.7AlternativeInterim Helistop Site The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativewould develop the proposedinterim helistopat a different location on the project site. The alternative interim site would be at ground level in the southwestern portionof the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and Figure4-4 approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project siteas shown in . This alternative would include an east-westflight paththat would cross the front of the hospital siteasitruns 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 Figure 4-5Figure 4-6 Schools). depicts thenortheast-flow flight corridors anddepicts the southwest-flowflight 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)severalSouthern 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 approachthe project sitefrom the east, flying westbound into the wind to land at the helistop; and would also take off in a westbound direction. During Santa Ana or westbound wind conditions, which occur occasionally, helicopters would approach from the west flying eastbound to land at the site, and take off also in an eastbound direction. Both of these flight corridors are shown in Figures 4-5and 4-6. 4-24 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 Site 8 Site 6B Site 3 Site 2 Site 7 Site 6A Site 1 PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE Site 6C 79 Alternative Helistop Site 5 Site 9 Site Locations Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 01000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Figure 4-5 Alternative Interim Helistop – North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions Site 8 Site 6B Site 3 Site 2 Site 7 Site 6A Site 1 PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE Site 6C 79 Alternative Helistop Site 5 Site 9 Site Locations Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 01000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA 444444444A 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444A 44444444444444444444444444444A 4. Project Alternatives 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 surfaceof 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 variancecould only be granted if this light pole would be lighted at night with red obstruction lights.If installed on the SCEpoles, thelightswould likely be on a dusk-to-dawn photocell system, and be on all night. If the hospital installs the lighting poles along Temecula Parkwaythelightswould 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, thealternative interimhelistopsitewould be surrounded by an approximate5-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-significantaesthetic impacts. 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’sless-than-significantimpacts. 4-29 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives Hazards The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located 114feet 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 ofthe prevailing winds at the project site) is an east-west flight path that would runparallel toTemecula Parkway. One existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surfaceof the interim alternative site’s flight path and the planned MOB2would penetrate the northern transitional surface. Thealternative interimsite’sflight 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 Parkwaywould be requiredalong witha 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, itis the policy of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics toonlygrant variances forone 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 MOB2 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 interimhelistop site are greater thanthat of the proposed interim helistop site. As shown in Figure 4-5, the flight path of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativein 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 helistopthat is 114feet 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 TemeculaParkway during helicopter operations, could increase traffic accident potential,or could cause confusion/distraction to patientsand visitorsenteringthe facilityby personal vehicle.In addition, helicopter landings and take-offs 114feet away from Temecula Parkway could impact pedestriansafety along the sidewalk that front the hospital and bicyclistsafety on Temecula Parkwaydue to rotorwash(winds generated from the helicopter). In comparison, the flight pathof the proposed interim helistop (shownin Figure2-4) would travel from behind the existing and planned hospital facilities, and would cross (not travel along) Temecula Parkway at a location farther away from the hospital that would provide the distance and trajectoryto be far above the roadway to not cause the distraction that could be caused by the Alternative InterimHelistop Site Alternative. 4-30 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives The location of theproposedinterim helistop is in the northwestern portion of the project site toward the rear of the hospital facilities, and helicopter activity at theproposedinterim site would consist ofmiddle 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 roadwayin comparison to the Alternative InterimHelistop Site Alternative. In addition, the proposed flight path would not travel above or cross vehicular pathsfrom 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 accessthe emergency room that could occur from the Alternative InterimHelistop Site Alternative flight path.Also, because helicopter landings and takeoffs would be not be adjacent to Temecula Parkway andwould bebuffered by hospital facilities,safety concerns related to pedestrians along the sidewalk that front the hospital and bicyclists on Temecula Parkway would not occur, asit could by the AlternativeInterimHelistop Site Alternative.Overall, the Alternative InterimHelistop Site Alternative results ingreater potentially significantimpacts related to hazards than the less-than-significantimpacts that would occur fromthe 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 projectand the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternativeas 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 dBCNEL contours from theproposedinterim helistop site (shown in Figure3.3-7) would remainwithin the project site. Hence, 60 dB CNEL contours from both the proposed interim and the alternative interim sites would remain within the hospitalsite. 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 4-31 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE 79 Alternative Helistop CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0500 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA Figure 4-7 Alternative Interim Helistop Location – CNEL Contours 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 InterimHelistop Site Alternative would be located closer than theproposed interim siteto Temecula Parkway and thesingle-familyresidential neighborhood across (south of) Temecula Parkway where existing ambient noise levels are 78.7 dB CNEL. As shown on Table 4-4 , the alternative sitewould increase noise at Site 2 by 0.1 dBCNEL and the remainder of the sites, including the residential across Temecula Parkway, would not experience an increase in CNEL noise. In comparison, the proposed projectwould result in an increase in ambient noise by 0.2 dBCNEL at Site 2 and 0.1 dBCNEL increase at Site 3 (Table 3.3-9). TABLE 4-4 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL NOISE AND HELICOPTER NOISE FROM THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITE Difference between Combined Ambient and Ambient and Combined Site Site Description/ Measurement Ambient Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter NumberAddressPeriodCNEL, dBCNEL, dBCNEL, dBCNEL, dB 124 hours28.659.60.0 30390 De Portola Road59.6 224 hours39.859.0+0.1 30955 De Portola Road58.9 324 hours33.863.50.0 31775 De Portola Road63.5 4On project site, at offset 20 minutesN/AN/AN/AN/A of proposed five-story bed tower 531602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours78.753.478.70.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) S1.4-1971. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. The differences in CNEL noise generated from the proposed interim siteand the alternative interimsite are very minimaland 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 wouldnot 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 InterimHelistop 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. 4-33 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives Short-Term Noise Table 4-5 shows the single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the alternativeinterimhelistopsite.As described above, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative wouldutilize 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 andfour arrival flights). TABLE 4-5 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITEALTERNATIVE WEST FLOWEAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds)(Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Site Departure Arrival Departure Arrival No.Site LocationLmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dB 130390 De Portola68.151.151.1 73.3 230955 De Portola67.968.667.969.2 331775 De Portola58.570.169.158.9 531602 Calle Los Padres 79.680.979.679.7 6AEquestrian Trail70.872.170.871.9 6BEquestrian Trail63.965.563.964.8 6CEquestrian Trail 73.673.373.479.7 7Madera Vista62.778.378.263.7 843941 Via Montalban49.060.257.948.9 9David Ln / Kevin Pl76.458.557.777.5 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 wouldhave the greatest impact at Site 5,the Country Glen neighborhood, where it wouldresult in a maximum noise level of 80.9dBLmaxinprevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights) and 79.7dBLmax inSanta 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 dBLmaxin prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dBLmaxin Santa Ana wind conditionsat Site 6A, the equestrian trail.Thus, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level that is 12.5dBLmax less in prevailing winds and21.1dBLmax less in Santa Ana windsthan the proposed interim helistop.Therefore, the 4-34 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativewould result in single-event noise levels that would be less than the proposed project. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4-5also shows thathelicopter overflight noisefrom the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativewouldexceed the exterior short-term noise standard at9of the 10 receptor sites inprevailingwinds and at 8 of the 10 receptor sites inSanta Ana wind conditions. In comparison, the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9of 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 at2fewer receptor locations inSanta Anawindconditions. Receptor Sites 2, 3, 6A, 6B, and 8, which are located furthest away from the alternative interim helistopeast/west flight path, would generally experience lower maximum short-term noise levels by the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativethan 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 experiencegreater maximum short-term noise levels under this alternative during prevailing and Santa Ana winds than as compared to the proposed interimhelistop location. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Themaximumnoise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be12.5dB Lmax less noise than what would occur by the proposed interim helistop in prevailing wind conditions, and 21.1dBLmax lessin Santa Ana wind conditions. In addition, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativewould exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at fewer receptor locations than the proposed interim helistop inSanta Ana conditions. Therefore,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternativewould result in reducedsingle-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 Alternativewould 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 Alternativewould be less than the proposed project; however,impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Conclusion The Alternative InterimHelistop Site Alternative would result in greaterimpacts than the proposed project’s less-than-significantimpactsrelated 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 impactsunder this alternative would begreater and potentially significant due tothe flight path that would run parallel and adjacent to Temecula Parkway. 4-35 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives Noise impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison with the proposed project. However, noise from the Alternative InterimHelistop 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 InterimHelistop 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 aestheticsare greaterand hazardsare greater and potentially would result in a new significant impact, the Alternative InterimHelistop Site Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives, the Alternative InterimHelistop Site Alternative would not fullymeet 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 efficientbecause ofthe locationaway from hospital, whichwould increase patient transport distanceand time to and from the emergency department. Furthermore, implementation of the Alternative InterimHelistop Site would need to undergo the full review and permitting processes withtheFAA, Riverside County ALUC,and Caltrans Aeronauticsthat 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 wouldbe an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Furthermore,this alterativewould not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazardsimpacts. 4.8Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop ahelistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location, which is shown in Figure 2-4. Development of the future hospital towerwilloccur 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 Figure2-4,the future hospital tower location is in front of the existing hospital building, toward Temecula Parkway. Under this alternative the northeast/southwestflight paths identified forthe permanent helistop would be usedwhile the helistop is located at ground level at the future tower site. The flight paths areshown in Figures2-4, 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 lotthan would occur by use of the permanent helistop at this location, which would be on the roof of the future tower. 4-36 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives When the helistop is moved to the proposed interim helistop location (upon construction of the futuretower) the flight paths identified for the proposed interim helistop (shown in Figures 2-4, 3.3-3, and 3.3-4) would be used. Thehelistoplocation thatwould 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, andFAA), 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 onthe 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 lightingthat 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 a5-foot-tall security fence. However, unlike the proposed project, the future tower helistop location isin 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 requiretree trimming). As described above, under the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative,prior tocommencement of construction of the futuretower, thehelistop 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 4-37 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives same less-than-significantaesthetic 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-significantaesthetic impacts. Because theFuture Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in more red obstruction lighting and a more visible helistopthat would be located in front of the existing hospital building and visible from Temecula Parkway that would besurrounded by security fencing, this alternative would result in greateraesthetic impacts thanthe proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts. Hazards The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop ahelistop 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 Figure2-4). 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 thehospital 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 helistopthat would not require tree trimming. The plannedMOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings (shown in Figure2-4) may also penetrate the northern transitional surfaceof 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 locationcould penetrate the southern transitional surface, generating an additional potential hazard impact.It is the policy of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to only grantone 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-sitebuildings 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 fromthe Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative wouldbe greater than what would occur by the proposed project. 4-38 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives As shown in Figure 4-5,one of the flight pathsfrom 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 crossTemecula Parkway, the parking lot, and the main hospital access road to land or take off from the helistopat ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. This helicopter activity would bealow-altitude event that would cross over pedestrians, bicyclesand vehicle travelers in the hospital driveway, parking lot, and Temecula Parkway. This would be alarge-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 patientsand visitorsentering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and takeoffs crossingTemecula 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 Figure2-4) 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 futuretower, 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 thehospitalthat 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 theFuture 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 4-39 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 locationfor use prior to construction of the new tower. Therefore, the CNEL noise contours that would be generated by this alternative would be similar towhat would occur by the proposed permanent helistopand would be Figure 4-8 contained within the hospital site, as shown on . Therefore, the average noise increase (CNEL) resulting fromthe helistop at the future tower location would beless thansignificant, which is the same asthe proposed project. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels The Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located at ground level at Table 4-6 the planned future hospital tower location. As shown on , 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, whichsets 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. 4-40 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 79 Future Tower Ground Level Legend CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Hospital Campus Noise Sensitive Land Use 0500 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2015; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA, 2012 Figure 4-8 NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations CNEL Contours for the Future Tower only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non-aircraft sources. Location as Interim Helistop Alternative 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-6 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL NOISE AND HELICOPTER NOISE FROM THE FUTURE TOWER LOCATION INTERIM HELISTOPSITE ALTERNATIVE Difference between Combined Ambient and Ambient and Combined Site Site Description/ Measurement Ambient Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter NumberAddressPeriodCNEL, dBCNEL, dBCNEL, dBCNEL, dB 124 hours23.759.60.0 30390 De Portola Road59.6 224 hours41.559.0+0.1 30955 De Portola Road58.9 324 hours42.563.50.0 31775 De Portola Road63.5 4On project site, at offset 20 minutesN/AN/AN/AN/A of proposedfive-story bed tower 531602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours78.740.678.70.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1971. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Short-Term Noise The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop ahelistop 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 Table 4-7 level at the future tower site (shown in Figure2-4).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 94.8dB Lmax inprevailing wind conditionsand 93.7 dB Lmaxin 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 dBLmax, in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmaxin Santa Ana conditions, both at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would resultin a short-termmaximum noise level at receptors of1.4dB Lmaxgreater in prevailing wind conditions(for a majority of flights), and 7.1 dB Lmaxless in Santa Ana conditions than the proposed interim helistop. 4-42 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-7 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS –FUTURE TOWER LOCATION AS INTERIMHELISTOP ALTERNATIVE WEST FLOWEAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds)(Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Departure Arrival Departure Arrival Site No.Site LocationLmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dB 158.648.348.363.3 30390 De Portola 268.968.868.972.5 30955 De Portola 367.283.883.867.8 31775 De Portola 531602 Calle Los Padres86.564.664.787.3 6A72.372.372.376.3 Equestrian Trail Overflight 6B67.167.567.168.8 Equestrian Trail 6C71.564.164.276.2 Equestrian Trail 94.893.7 777.178.4 Madera Vista 852.274.4 43941 Via Montalban 72.552.3 971.851.9 David Ln / Kevin Pl 51.979.7 NOTE: Receptors receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2015. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4-7also shows that the helicopter overflight noise fromthe ground level helistop at the future tower locationwould exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailingand Santa Anawind conditions. In comparison, the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9of 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 lessreceptor location inSanta 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 bythe 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 Alternativein 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 Lmaxgreater in 4-43 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights) than the proposed interim site. However, this alternative would generatea maximum noise of 7.1dB Lmaxless in Santa Ana conditions than the proposed interim helistop.In addition, this alternativewould exceed the exterior short-term noise standardone less receptor locationthan the proposed interim helistopinSanta Ana conditions. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternativewould result in a slightly greatermaximum single-event noisefor a majority of flights; however, it would impact one fewer receptor location than the proposed interim helistop inSanta Ana conditions. Similar to the proposed interim helistop, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternativewould result in a significant unavoidable impact because helicopternoise 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 timesa 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 besimilar tothe proposed project’ssignificant and unavoidableimpacts. Therefore, because the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and hazards impacts andwould not reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significantlevel, 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 requiretwo interim helistop sites,each with new operating plansthat could be disruptive tooperations ofhospital, especially the transfer of emergency patients. This would result in interfering with the project objective to provide superior, easily accessible emergency servicesin an operationally efficientmanner.Finally, a ground-levelsite at the future tower location wouldbe required to undergothefull review andpermitting 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 thatis 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. 4-44 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives 4.9Existing Hospital Roof Helistop SiteAlternative The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would developthehelistop on the roof of the existing five-storyhospital building. As shown in Figure2-4,the existing five-story hospital building is in the central portion of the project site, behindthe futuretower 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. Thehelistop located on the roof of the existing hospital building would have the same design, lighting, and security features as the permanenthelistop described in Chapter 2, Project Description. Noadditionalobstruction or lead-in lighting would be requiredunder 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 helistopand 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 CBCor the CBCthat is in place when building permits are issued. The 2013 CBCis 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 needto be strengthened by supplemental fillet welding; and (3) Approximately eight existing structural building columns would be needto 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 impactthe 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 unitrooms, 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 4-45 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives Pile Foundation Modifications: The existing pile foundations of the hospital structure would be neededto be strengthened with additionalpiles. 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, afuel/water separator would needto 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 couldtake 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 thehospital, which are nearby or underneath construction equipment (such as cranes), would also be unusable, whichwould 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 operationsthatwould include 16green flush-mounted perimeter lights surrounding the TLOFin accordance with Caltrans Division of Aeronautics standards.However, due to its location five-stories above ground, no additional obstruction lightingor lead-in lightingwould 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 wouldconsist 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-siteuses. 4-46 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives The rooftop nighttime lighting for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativewould be consistent with what would be used for the permanent helistop, whichwould 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 hospitalbuilding 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 SiteAlternative would result in fewer aesthetic impacts than the less-than-significantimpacts 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-significantaesthetic impacts. Hazards The helistop site that would be developed under the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativewould be located on top of the five-story existing hospital buildingand would use the northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop, which meet safety recommendations related to prevailing wind conditions.Because ofthe height and location of the building in the central portion of the project site, a helistopon top of the existing hospital building would meetthe FAA’s Heliport Design Guide standards andthe Caltrans Division ofAeronautics criteria for obstructions and lighting. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativewould 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 theExisting Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. Because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would meet FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics safety standards, andno variances or additional safety lighting would be required,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in similar less-than-significantimpacts related to hazards asthe proposed project. Noise Construction Noise Construction of this alternative would result inconstruction activityon top, within,and directly adjacent to the operating hospital, which is a sensitive receptor.As described previously, to implement the Existing Hospital Roof asHelistop 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 implementingsubstantial upgrades to thebuilding’sfire 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 bythe proposed project. Therefore,construction noise impacts bythe Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativewould be greater thanthose currently occurring and proposed to occur by the proposedhospital developmentproject. 4-47 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives CNEL Standards The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would develop ahelistop on the roof of the existing five-story hospital building, which is located in the central portion of the project site, behindthe 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 similarCNEL contours. As shown in Figure3.3-8,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 Figure 4-9 contained within the hospital site, asshown on . 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 arriveatand depart from the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building would be similar to what would occur withthe 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 belimited in length and frequency,occurring Table 4-8 approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights).shows the single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building. 4-48 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 Existing Tower Rooftop Helistop 79 Legend CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Hospital Campus Noise Sensitive Land Use 0500 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2015; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA, 2012 Figure 4-9 NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations CNEL Contours for the Existing only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non-aircraft sources. Hospitaloof Helistop Site Alternative 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-8 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE EXISTING HOSPITAL ROOF HELISTOP SITEALTERNATIVE WEST FLOWEAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds)(Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Site Departure Arrival Departure Arrival No.Site LocationLmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dBLmax, dB 130390 De Portola48.349.649.763.7 230955 De Portola78.378.278.379.2 331775 De Portola70.281.781.670.2 531602 Calle Los Padres 81.568.667.784.0 6AEquestrian Trail 82.882.882.883.7 6BEquestrian Trail75.375.375.376.3 6CEquestrian Trail71.970.870.876.3 88.687.2 7Madera Vista76.176.1 843941 Via Montalban53.773.671.553.7 9David Ln / Kevin Pl70.155.355.078.3 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, resultingin a maximum noise level of 88.6 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions, and 87.2dB Lmaxin Santa Ana wind conditions. In addition, this alternative would result in 84.0dBLmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site5, Country Glen neighborhood; and result in 82.8dBLmaxat Site 6A, the equestrian trail,inprevailing wind conditions and83.7dB 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 wouldresult in a maximum of93.4 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8dBLmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativeis anticipated to result in a maximum noise level of 88.6 dBLmax, dB in prevailing wind conditions, and 87.2 dBLmax, dB in Santa Ana wind conditions, it is anticipated toresult in a maximum noise level at receptors of4.8dBLmax, dB less in prevailing wind conditions, and 13.6dBLmax, 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 helistopwould result in a maximum noise level of 89.8dBLmax inprevailing wind conditions and 87.8dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions, at Site7, the Madera Vista apartments. This noise would be 4-50 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives 1.2dBLmax lower than what would occur by the proposed permanent helistopinprevailing wind conditions, and would be 0.6dB Lmax lower than what would occur by the proposed permanent helistopin Santa Ana wind conditions. Therefore, helicopter operationsusingtheExisting Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativewould result in a maximum single-event noise levels that would beslightly lessthan with the proposed project.However, as described in Section 3.3, Noise,a change innoise that is less than 3 dB is not perceivable(heard) by humans. Therefore, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative wouldresult in a slightly less maximum noise level; however, the difference would not be noticeable. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4-8also shows that the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativewould result in helicopter overflight noise that would exceed the exterior short-term noise standardat 9of 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 Alternativenortheast/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 experiencegreater 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 9of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditionsand at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. The proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9of 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 Alternativewould exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at one less receptor location in Santa Ana conditionsthanthe interim helistop,but would exceed the standard at the same number of locations asthe proposedpermanenthelistop inboth wind conditions. Therefore, impacts to receptor sites by theExisting Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative wouldbe slightly less than the proposed project. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Similar to the proposed project, the noise from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativewould be substantially louder thanboththe City’s allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels,andwould occur approximately eight times a month. Therefore, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativewould not reduce the significant and unavoidable noise impacts to a less-than-significantlevel. The Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is anticipated toresult in a maximum noise level at receptors of4.8 dB Lmax less in prevailing wind conditions, and 13.6 dB Lmaxless 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 fromthe Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativeat 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. 4-51 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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 aestheticsand hazards. In regard to construction noise impacts, because the hospital is a sensitive receptor,construction noisewould be greater under this alternative than theproposed 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 ofthe Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be significant andunavoidable. 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 wouldhinder use of the existing hospital facilities because ofthe 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 wouldbe disruptive tooperations ofhospital, which would result in interference with the project objective of providing superior, easily accessible emergency servicesin an operationally efficientmanner. Finally, a helistopon the existing hospital roof wouldbe required to undergothefull 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 thatis an operationally efficient, 4-52 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 4. Project Alternatives state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors.However, this alternativewould meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. 4.10Environmentally Superior Alternative As described,each of the identified alternatives would reduce the maximum noiselevelat the receptor sites that would be generated by the proposedproject, which would be 93.4 dBLmaxin prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditionsfor the interim helistop site,and 89.8 dBLmaxin 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 exceedthe City’s allowable noise limit and the existing ambient noise in the project vicinity. Table 4-9 summarizes the impacts of each of thealternatives relative to the project. Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelinesrequires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the analysisin this RDSEIR-2016, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativeis the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As shown in Table 4-9and described previously, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternativewould 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 Alternativeis 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 fromthe 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 interferewith 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 Aeronauticsof the existing building roof site,would interfere withthe 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. 4-53 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 2016 130652 Existing Hospital Roof , as it would be disruptive to , February construction operations ESA / same extent as the but Significant and Yes, but not to the proposed project existing hospital Helistop Site Unavoidable operations and fewer Greater Similar Fewer as Interim Helistop Site Future Tower Location project objectives related Significant and development related to aesthetics and hazards to hospital operations Would not fully meet and compatibility of Unavoidable CT Similar. GreaterGreater D THE PROPOSED PROJE Site development related to aesthetics and hazards Fewer, but Significant Would not fully meet Interim Potentially related to hospital project objectives and Unavoidable operations and compatibility of Alternative Significant , GreaterGreater S OF ALTERNATIVES AN 9 - ewer, but proposed project in extent as the TABLE 4 pproved Project , but not to the routes and hazards regards to access 54 - - City Significant and 4 Unavoidable / No Project Similar or f GreaterGreater same Yes A COMPARISON OF IMPACT regards to hazards and adjacent development No Project/ Existing proposed project in same extent as the , but not to the reater, compatibility with Significant and Unavoidable Condition g Similar or Greater Fewer Yes Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ignificantignificant Proposed Project Significant and Unavoidable SS Less than Less than Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Yes Meets the project 4. Project Alternatives Impact Category Aesthetics objectives Hazards Noise 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. Cityof 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. Cityof Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan. Accessed at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Planning/zoningdocume nts/generalplan.htm on December 31, 2013. Cityof 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.pdfon 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. 5-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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.phpon January 22, 2014. Riverside County. 2004. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. October 2004. in December 2013. Accessed at http://www.rcaluc.org/plan_new.asp Stateof California. 2014. Aeronautics Law State Aeronautics Act Public Utility Code. Accessed on at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/regulations/cpuc_21001.pdf January 10, 2014. Stateof California. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Sections 3525 through 3560. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/ Airports and Heliports. Accessed at documents/regulations/Regs_pub.pdf on January 10, 2014. UnitedStates Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration(OSHA). www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/ Appendix I:A-1. Decibel Notation. Accessedat 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. 5-2 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 RecirculatedDraft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 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, NoiseAnalyst Kelly Ross,Project Analyst Paige Anderson, Project Analyst Jason Nielsen, GIS Linda Uehara, Graphic Artist 6-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helipad ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 APPENDIX A ’ FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronauticsand Riverside County ALUC Correspondence Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjectESA / 130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact ReportFebruary2016 ADOPTED 2006 FINAL EIR Available from the City ClerkÓs Office of the City of Temecula upon request ADOPTED 2008 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Available from the City ClerkÓs Office of the City of Temecula upon request ADOPTED 2011 EIR ADDENDUM Available from the City ClerkÓs Office of the City of Temecula upon request RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION LETTER DATED MARCH 4, 2014 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY March 4, 2014 CHAIR Simon Housman Rancho Mirage Mr. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department VICE CHAIRMAN Rod Ballance 41000 Main Street Riverside Temecula, CA 92590 COMMISSIONERS RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW File No.: ZAP1054FV13 Arthur Butler Related File No.: PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit) Riverside APN: 959-080-026 John Lyon Riverside Dear Mr. Fisk: Glen Holmes Hemet On February 13, 2014, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found City Greg Pettis of Temecula Case No. PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit), a proposal to establish a Cathedral City temporary (interim) heliport (specifically, a hospital helistop), consisting of a 48-foot diameter (1,808 square foot) Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) Area on a ground mounted concrete landing Richard Stewart Moreno Valley pad with perimeter lighting and painted markings, within an 87-foot diameter final approach and takeoff area, plus a 16-foot tall ground mounted illuminated wind cone, on the grounds of Temecula Valley Hospital, located northerly of Temecula Parkway and south of De Portola STAFF CONSISTENT Road, with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Director Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions: Ed Cooper John Guerin Russell Brady CONDITIONS: Barbara Santos County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon St., 14 Floor. th 1. No operations (takeoffs or landings) shall be conducted until such time as the State of Riverside, CA 92501 California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has issued a Site (951) 955-5132 Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to Sections 3525 through 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. www.rcaluc.org 2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design. 3. Establishment and operations shall comply with the recommendations and requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013, a copy of which is attached hereto. 4. Helicopter idle time shall be minimized as much as possible. 5.The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) requests that Temecula Valley Hospital consider returning to ALUC to seek advisory comments regarding mitigation of noise impacts on surrounding properties in the event that the average number of monthly operations exceeds sixteen (16) within any given quarterly period. RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION March 4, 2014 This finding of consistency applies only to the interim helistop as evaluated in the attached noise study. The permanent helistop will require subsequent review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. It is recommended that single-event noise analysis be conducted in conjunction with ALUC review of the permanent helistop, by which time known activity levels at the interim helistop will allow for a more precise projection of noise levels. If you have any questions, please contact Russell Brady, ALUC Contract Planner, at (951) 955- 0549, or John Guerin, ALUC Principal Planner, at (951) 955-0982. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ______________________________________ Edward C. Cooper, Director RB:bks cc: Temecula Valley Hospital (applicant) (site address) Temecula Valley Hospital, Inc., c/o George Brunner, King of Prussia (tax roll address) Jeff Wright (representative) DPR/Turner, a Joint Venture (payee) Amy C. Towell (nearby landowner) ALUC Staff Y:\\AIRPORT CASE FILES\\French Valley\\ZAP1054FV13\\ZAP1054FV13.LTR.doc 2 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSITRATION LETTER DATED JULY 3, 2013 CALTRANS DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS E-MAIL DATED DECEMBER 29, 2011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER DATED APRIL 23, 2014 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER DATED MARCH 16, 2015 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER DATED MARCH 21, 2016 TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL LETTER DATED MARCH 9, 2015 PROJECT OVERVIEW INFORMATION (PROVIDED BY TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL, MARCH 22, 2016) Temecula Valley Hospital: Helistop Relocation Project Project Overview: • The project would relocate the helistop previously approved by the City in connection with the Temecula Valley Hospital project to: (1) an interim location in the western portion of the site; and (2) a permanent location on the roof of the future hospital tower when it is constructed. The interim 1 helistop would be removed when the permanent helistop is operational. • with adjacent land uses, comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans) operational safety criteria, and provide operational functionality for the delivery of critical hospital services. In particular: After the City approved the original helistop location, the Madera Vista apartments were unfavorable crosswind approaches and departures; or (2) red obstruction lights should be installed on the Madera Vista apartment buildings, which are not under the control of the City or Temecula Valley Hospital. direction crossing directly over the Los Ranchitos neighborhood; and (2) trees located within riparian habitat adjacent to the hospital should be trimmed or removed. • Caltrans and FAA’s conditions are undesirable due to potential impacts to off-site land uses, as well as concerns over crosswind safety conditions for helicopter operations on approach and departure. Therefore, Temecula Valley Hospital undertook a comprehensive site selection process that resulted in the proposed project. 1 The helistop relocation project also would include a 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. Helistop Relocation ProjectContact: Raymond Ketcham Updated: Raymond.Ketcham@uhsinc.com | (951) 303-8959 March 22, 2016 Need for Helistop: • Medical helicopters save lives. • A helipad allows utilization of an air ambulance to rapidly transport patients to hospitals that have the necessary specialists and treatments. Some emergencies demand time-limited treatments, such as a stroke patient that requires a specialist for interventional care. Whether or not this type of care can be successfully administered is dependent upon time. If that window of opportunity is missed, the potentially life-saving treatment cannot be given. • Temecula Valley Hospital provides some specialty services that are not available at all hospitals, including being a STEMI Receiving Center and an accredited Advanced Primary Stroke Center. saving care, particularly for heart attacks and strokes. • The helipad at Temecula Valley Hospital also provides more rapid transfers out of the hospital for specialty services not available locally, particularly for critical pediatric care, burn patients and trauma patients. Use of Helicopter Transport: • Helicopter access at Temecula Valley Hospital is limited to the most critical and life threatening situations. A physician must approve the need for all helicopter transports. • Examples of patients who would require helicopter transport include: Critically ill or injured children requiring emergent care at a Children’s Hospital Burn patients requiring life or limb-saving treatment or surgery at a Burn Center Critical trauma patients requiring life-saving care or surgery at a Trauma Center A Helicopter Will Not Be Used For: • Routine transport of stable patients. • Transport of staff, administrators or other non-patient transports. Safety: • The safety of our patients, transport teams and community members is Temecula Valley Hospital’s top priority. • Temecula Valley Hospital’s transport program has an excellent safety record. • Because Temecula Valley Hospital is not a trauma center, it is able to consider distance, weather and patient condition before determining the best mode of transport: airplane, helicopter or ground. Disaster Response: Valley Area. These plans would be a vital part of the disaster response plan for Temecula Valley Hospital, as well as for the City of Temecula and County of Riverside. Helistop Relocation ProjectContact: Raymond Ketcham Updated: Raymond.Ketcham@uhsinc.com | (951) 303-8959 March 22, 2016 Helistop Site Planning Principles: Temecula Valley Hospital carefully considered the following principles in selecting the interim helistop site: • Provide ready access to the Emergency Department to optimize patient service. • safety. • • Comply with published airspace obstruction-clearance criteria, providing pilots with a safe, obstruction-free environment for maneuvering. • Design the helistop dimensions to accommodate small commercially-operated regional EMS helicopters. But, also design it from a community preparedness standpoint to accommodate larger public safety agency helicopters with the same level of safety if needed during mass casualty events. • Avoid impinging upon other facilities planned for the campus for which infrastructure had already been installed. This is particularly true for airspace obstruction-clearance criteria. Temecula Valley Hospital evaluated a number of potential alternative sites for the interim helistop; Proposed Flight Paths: Aircraft achieve safety and performance advantage by approaching and departing into the wind. Prevailing winds are generally out of the west. Santa Ana conditions generally produce winds out of the approaches and departures during prevailing conditions and eastbound during Santa Ana conditions. 4644 Jiix I|mwxmrk Lipmwxst F A A a n d C a l t r a n s D R ei v c i s o i mo n m o e f n A d e e r do n F a l i u g t h i c t s P a t h // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //// //// // // PROJECT SITE Mrxivmq Lipmwxst EQUESTRIAN TRAIL // // // // // // // // // // // // // 79 . Xiqigype Zeppi} Lswtmxep Lipmwxst WIMV 574:96 WSYVGI> Lipmtperrivw Figure 2-4 I|mwxmrk erh Tvstswih Mrxivmq erh Tivqerirx Lipmwxst Psgexmsrw Helistop Relocation ProjectContact: Raymond Ketcham Updated: Raymond.Ketcham@uhsinc.com | (951) 303-8959 March 22, 2016 Anticipated Transports: Anticipated helicopter transports will be infrequent, occurring an average of approximately four times per month (a transport involves a landing and takeoff, and is therefore two operations). • 48 per year (96 operations) Projected Annual Transports: • 4 per month (8 operations) Projected Monthly Transports: • .13 per day (.26 operations) Projected Daily Transports: These projections are based on current operations at the existing Emergency Medical Services (EMS) landing site and future anticipated demand. As with the existing EMS landing site, the actual frequency of 2 operations will vary depending on the timing of medical emergencies and needed transport for critical care. Helicopter Arrival/Departure Times: The large majority of transports are anticipated to occur between the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. • 3.2 transports per month (80%) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • .4 transports per month (10%) 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. • .4 transports per month (10%) 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Helicopter Noise: • A helicopter noise event would be limited, lasting not more than approximately 5 minutes for landings and takeoffs. Estimated descent-to-landing and ascent-to-departure time – 30 seconds. Engine run time on helistop – 2 to 3 minutes after landing and before takeoff. • Typically, the helicopter would occupy the helistop for 30 to 60 minutes, between arrival and departure, during which time the helicopter engine is not running. • Hovering, which can be one of the noisiest helicopter activities, is not part of a routine helistop landing. The Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR (RDSEIR) included analysis of helicopter noise relative to two key metrics: • Community noise equivalent level (CNEL), which considers a 24-hour time period with additional weighting during the evening and nighttime periods to account for increased sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. Analysis using CNEL determined helicopter noise impacts to be • Single event noise exposure level (SENEL), which relates to a single event such as helicopter arrival the potential for limited, short duration increases in noise at nearby receptor sites. However, these noise events would occur: (1) infrequently (approximately four transports per month); (2) for only (approximately 80% of the time). laws restricting arrival and departure times. Notwithstanding, the RDSEIR requires feasible mitigation, including requiring Temecula Valley Hospital to: ensure pilots are routinely trained to ensure optimum reason for trip and date and time of arrival and departure; establish a telephone hotline for registering noise complaints; and establish a community working group to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. 2 The hospital currently uses the City-approved helistop site as an EMS landing site, which is allowable under state regulations related to medical transport (California Code of Regulations \[CCR), Title 21, Section 3527(g)). Helistop Relocation ProjectContact: Raymond Ketcham Updated: Raymond.Ketcham@uhsinc.com | (951) 303-8959 March 22, 2016 Community Involvement: • Medical transport staff, heliport planning consultants and architects have conducted community meetings to address questions and discuss how other communities have worked with their hospital regarding helicopter patient transports. • Temecula Valley Hospital administrators have participated in meetings with the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association to share information and hear feedback. • Temecula Valley Hospital will establish a telephone hotline for registering noise complaints and host regular community working group meetings to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter-related noise issues. Aeronautical Agency Approvals: guidelines for helistops. • As required by Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the project team submitted the interim helistop location and design to the FAA for an airspace study. The FAA visited the site, reviewed the design and, on July 3, 2013, issued its airspace determination letter concluding that “the proposal is use of airspace by aircraft.” • The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission also reviewed the proposed interim helistop and, on February 13, 2014, found it to be “Consistent with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan” (which included safety considerations). • Caltrans’ Division of Aeronautics, the state permitting agency for all airports and heliports within California, reviewed the project design and granted its “Conditional Plan Approval” on June 12, 2013. • All three of these agencies tasked with reviewing new landing sites in California evaluate safety considerations, including airspace obstruction-clearance criteria. The helistop will be lighted in accordance with FAA criteria for nighttime operations. The helistop will not have instrument approach • The permanent helistop would necessarily be reviewed separately be each of these agencies at the time that the second hospital tower (and its rooftop helistop) are designed. Helistop Relocation ProjectContact: Raymond Ketcham Updated: Raymond.Ketcham@uhsinc.com | (951) 303-8959 March 22, 2016 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: PA13-0141 Applicant: Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. Proposal: A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital. The modification would relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase. The modification would also allow for the construction of an approximately 5,000 square foot single-story storage building for non-hazardous material storage to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road at 31780 Temecula Parkway. Environmental: Consistent with Section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), a Supplemental EIR and a Recirculated Supplemental EIR were prepared for this modification application. Case Planner: Stuart Fisk, (951) 506-5159 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City’s website – Supplemental Material www.cityoftemecula.org. Any distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City’s website – www.cityoftemecula.org – and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Community Development Department, (951) 694-6400.